Jrnm  tlj?  Uibrarg  of 

^rflfraaor  Benjamin  Bmktttrt&ge  MarftHi 

Sfrqueatlfefl  by  Ijtm  in 

tl|r  ICtbrarji  nf 

•Princeton  utynilflglral  Seminary 


sec 

107% 


3EP29  1023 


AUGUSTINE   AND  THE   PELAGIAN   CONTROVERSY. 

THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  DOCTRINE 

OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 


BY 

BENJAMIN   B.  'WARFIELD 


NEW  YORK 

THE  CHRISTIAN  LITERATURE  COMPANY 

1897 


Copyright,   1897,  by  The  Christian  Literature  Company 


PREFACE. 


The  papers  contained  in  this  volume,  neither  of 
which  is  here  printed  for  the  first  time,  are  reprinted 
to  render  them  more  accessible  than  they  have  come 
to  be  in  the  lapse  of  time.  Some  of  their  peculiarities 
are  explained  by  the  circumstances  of  their  original  pub- 
lication. The  former  one  was  prepared  as  prolegome- 
na to  a  translation  of  Augustine's  Anti-Pelagian  trea- 
tises, and  owes  it  to  this  fact  that  those  treatises  are 
described  and  abstracted  and  not  extracted  in  it,  while 
incidental  passages  bearing  on  the  subject  from  others 
of  Augustine's  writings  are  illustratively  quoted.  It 
is  reprinted  here  practically  unaltered.  The  latter 
paper,  which  originally  appeared  in  a  monthly  maga- 
zine, has,  on  the  contrary,  been  considerably  enlarged 
and  in  some  parts  rewritten  for  this  reissue. 

Princeton,  September,  1897. 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

AUGUSTINE  AND  THE  PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY. .  .1-139 

The  Origin  and  Nature  of  Pelagianism .3-12 

The  first  task  of  the  Church,  3  ;  inevitableness  of  this  here- 
sy, 4  ;  the  author  of  it,  4  ;  its  novelty,  4  ;  its  anti-Chris- 
tian basis,  4  ;  its  roots,  5  ;  its  central  and  formative  prin- 
ciple, 6  ;  its  three  chief  contentions,  7  ;  its  attitude  to 
grace,  8  ;  to  sin,  9  ;  its  crass  individualism,  10  ;  five  claims 
made  for  it,  12. 

The  External  History  of  the  Pelagian  Controversy 13-22 

Pelagius'  work  in  Rome,  13  ;  Pelagius  and  Ccelestius  in 
Africa,  13  ;  Ccelestius'  condemnation  at  Corinth,  14  ; 
Pelagius'  examination  before  John  of  Jerusalem,  15  ;  his 
trial  at  Diospolis,  15  ;  his  condemnation  at  Carthage  and 
Mileve,  16  ;  Innocent's  acquiescence,  17  ;  wavering  policy 
of  Zosimus,  17  ;  the  interference  of  the  State,  18  ;  final 
action  of  the  Africans,  18  ;  stringent  action  of  Zosimus, 
19  ;  Julian  of  Eclanum,  20  ;  rise  of  semi-Pelagianism,  20  ; 
condemnation  of  semi-Pelagianism,  21. 

Augustine's  Part  in  the  Controversy 23-126 

Augustine's  readiness  for  the  controversy,  23  ;  first  oral 
stage  of  it,  early  anti-Pelagian  sermons,  24  ;  occasion,  ob- 
ject, and  contents  of  the  first  two  books  of  the  treatise, 
On  the  Merits  and  Forgiveness  of  Sins,  28  ;  of  the 
third  book,  31  ;  of  On  the  Spirit  and  the  Letter,  32  ;  the 
letter  to  Anastasius,  36  ;  the  note  to  Pelagius,  37  ;  the 
first  letter  to  Paulinus  of  Nola,  38  ;  controversial  sermons 
of  this  period,  39  ;  the  progress  of  the  controversy,  43  ; 
Sicilian  Pelagianism  and  the  letter  to  Hilary,  43  ;  Tima- 
sius  and  James,  46  ;  occasion,  object,  and  contents  of  the 
treatise  On  Nature  and  Grace,  46  ;  Paulus  Orosius,  51  ; 
letter  to  Jerome  on  the  Origin  of  Souls,  51  ;  Ccelestius* 
Definitions,  53  ;  occasion,  object,  and  contents  of  On  the 
Perfection  of  Man's  Righteousness,  53  ;  news  of  the 
doings  in  Palestine,  55  ;  Pelagian  view  of  "  Forgive  us 
our  debts,"  55  ;  councils  in  Africa  and  letters  to  Inno- 
cent, 57  ;  letter  to  Hilary  of  Norbonne,  58  ;  letter  to  John 
of  Jerusalem,  59  ;  letter  to  Julianna,  60  ;  occasion,  object, 


l  CONTENTS. 

PAGB 

and  contents  of  On  the  Proceedings  in  Palestine,  62  ; 
second  letter  to  Paulinus  of  Nola,  63  ;  the  sharpest  period 
of  controversy,  65  ;  Augustine's  policy,  66  ;  Zosimus'  dis- 
comfiture, 6S  ;  occasion  and  object  of  On  the  Grace  of 
Christ  and  On  Original  Sin,  69  :  contents  of  On  the 
Grace  of  Christ,  70  ;  of  On  Original  Sin,  72  ;  Augus- 
tine's sermons  of  this  period,  73  ;  letter  to  Optatus  on  the 
soul,  80  ;  correspondence  with  Sixtus,  83  ;  letter  to  Mer- 
cator,  86  ;  letter  to  Asellicus,  8S  ;  occasion,  object,  and 
contents  of  the  first  book  On  Marriage  and  Concupi- 
scence, 89  ;  second  letter  to  Optatus,  92  ;  occasion,  ob- 
ject, and  contents  of  On  the  Soul  and  its  Origin,  93  ; 
advent  of  Julian,  95  ;  his  first  controversial  writings,  96  ; 
occasion,  object,  and  contents  of  the  second  book  of  On 
Marriage  and  Concupiscence,  98  ;  and  of  Against  Two 
Letters  of  the  Pelagians,  99  ;  and  of  Against  Julian, 
103  ;  the  Enchiridion  on  sin  and  grace,  106 ;  occasion  of 
On  Grace  and  Free  Will,  108  ;  object  and  contents  of  this 
treatise,  no;  occasion,  object,  and  contents  of  On  Re- 
buke and  Grace,  m  ;  the  letter  to  Vitalis,  113  ;  Julian's 
reply  to  the  second  book  of  On  Marriage  and  Concupi- 
scence, 117  ;  occasion  of  On  Heresies,  117  ;  its  account  of 
Pelagianism,  118  ;  rise  of  semi-Pelagianism  in  Gaul,  120  ; 
occasion,  object,  and  contents  of  On  the  Perseverance 
of  the  Saints  and  On  the  Gift  of  Perseverance,  120  ; 
contents  of  the  Unfinished  Work,  124  ;  Augustine's 
crowning  anti-Pelagian  work,  126. 

The  Theology  of  Grace 127-139 

Roots  and  formative  principles  of  Augustine's  theology, 
127  ;  grace  its  central  idea,  127  ;  the  Necessity  of  Grace, 
12S  ;  the  fall,  128  ;  free-will,  129  ;  the  Nature  of  Grace, 
130;  prevenient  grace,  132;  gratuitous  grace,  132  ;  sov- 
ereignty of  grace,  132  ;  the  Effects  of  Grace,  133  ;  ir- 
resistible grace,  133  ;  indefectible  grace,  133  ;  Predes- 
tination, 134  ;  the  Means  of  Grace,  135  ;  infant  damna- 
tion, 137  ;  Scriptural  basis  of  Augustine's  theology,  138. 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  INFANT 

SALVATION 141-239 

Introductory 143-144 

The  Patristic  Doctrine 144-151 

Infants'  need  of  and  capacity  for  salvation  recognized,  144  ; 
prevalence  of  legalistic  conception,  145  ;  Gregory  of  Nys- 
sa's  views.  146  ;  externalism  of  conception,  147  ;  bap- 
tism held  necessary  to  salvation,  148;  teachings  of  Au- 
gustine, 148  ;  outcome  of  patristic  thought,  150. 

The  Mediaeval  Mitigation 151-154 

The   inherited  doctrine,    151  ;   the   scholastic   doctrine  of 


CONTENTS. 


poena  damni,  152  ;  abortive  attempt  to  apply  to  infants 
baptism  of  intention,  153  ;  John  Wycliffe,  154. 

The  Drift  in  the  Church  of  Romb 154-165 

Four  opinions  held  in  post- Reformation  Romanism,  154  ; 
the  Tridentine  doctrine,  155  ;  popular  teaching  on  its 
basis,  155  ;  baptism  of  intention  rejected  for  infants,  15G  ; 
discrimination  in  favor  of  heathen  infants,  158  ;  protests 
of  the  heart,  161;  "happiness  in  hell,"  163;  modern 
Pelagianizing  views,  164. 

The  Lutheran  Teaching 165-174 

Protestant  doctrine  of  the  Church,  166  ;  assertion  of  the 
necessity  of  baptism,  167  ;  baptism  of  intention  applied 
to  infants,  168  ;  Gerhard's  teaching,  169  ;  fate  of  heathen 
infants,  170  ;  four  opinions,  171  ;  agnosticism  the  histori- 
cal Lutheran  position,  172  ;  modern  Lutheran  opinion, 
172  ;  difficulties  of  Lutheranism,  173. 

The  Anglican  Position 174-194 

Romanizing  teaching  of  early  formularies,  175  ;  salvation 
of  baptized  children  affirmed,  177  ;  implication  of  bap- 
tismal regeneration,  178  ;  unsuccessful  efforts  to  revise, 
181  ;  implied  loss  of  unbaptized,  183  ;  at  least  no  hope  ex- 
tended for  unbaptized,  185  ;  pure  agnosticism  as  to  un- 
baptized children,  186  ;  opinions  of  English  Reformers, 
187  ;  Cranmer,  187  :  Becon,  188  ;  Hooper,  190  ;  variety 
of  seventeenth  century  opinions,  191  ;  Hooker,  192  ;  Low 
Church  opinions,  193  ;  recent  High  Church  drift,  193. 

The  Reformed  Doctrine 195-220 

Consistent  application  of  Protestant  doctrine  of  the  Church, 
195  ;  High  Church  views  of  Jurieu,  195  ;  free-grace  and 
electing  love,  196  ;  Zwingli's  teaching,  197  ;  doctrine  of 
the  covenant  fundamental,  199  ;  Calvin  and  Bullinger, 
199  ;  essential  Reformed  postulates,  202  ;  five  distin- 
guishable opinions,  202  ;  1.  All  dying  infants  saved,  203  ; 
2.  Fate  of  all  infants  uncertain  to  us,  205  ;  condemned 
by  Dort,  205  ;  Gataker,  205  ;  Baxter,  206  ;  why  neither 
view  acceptable  to  earlier  Calvinists,  208  ;  3.  All  cove- 
nanted infants  saved  and  uncovenanted  lost,  209  ;  4.  All 
covenanted  infants  and  some  uncovenanted  saved,  210  ; 
5.  All  covenanted  infants  saved,  agnostic  as  to  uncove- 
nanted, 211  ;  Jonathan  Dickinson,  211  ;  the  Reformed 
Confessions,  213  ;  the  Synod  of  Dort,  213  ;  the  Westmin- 
ster Confession,  214  ;  implications  of  "  elect  infants  dying 
in  infancy,"  215  ;  drift  in  late  eighteenth  and  early  nine- 
teenth centuries,  217  ;  Lyman  Beecher,  218  ;  modern  Cal- 
vinistic  opinion,  219. 

Ethical  Tendencies 220-236 

The  most  serious  peril  to  the  orderly  development  of  the 
doctrine,  220  ;  early  Pelagianizing  conceptions,  221  ;  in- 


in  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

dividual  Pelagianizing  assaults  on  the  Reformed  doctrine, 

221  ;  the  Remonstrant  contention  and  its  inconsequence, 

222  ;  Wesleyan  Arminianism,  223  ;  its  difficulty,  223  ;  Dr. 
James  Strong's  solution,  224  ;  original  Wesleyanism,  225  : 
minor  differences,  226  ;  Pelagianizing  Arminianism,  228  ; 
its  consequences,  229  ;  post-mortem  probation,  230  ;  Dr. 
Kedney's  construction,  232  ;  Dr.  Emory  Miller's,  234. 

Conclusion 236-239 

Three  generic  views,  236  ;  their  relations,  237  ;  steps  in  the 
development  of  the  doctrine,  237  ;  the  doctrine  a  test  of 
systems,  238 ;  consonant  with  the  Reformed  system 
alone,  238. 


AUGUSTINE   AND  THE  PELAGIAN 
CONTROVERSY. 


AUGUSTINE    AND   THE    PELAGIAN    CON- 
TROVERSY. 


The  Origin  and  Nature  of  Pelagianism. 

It  was  natural  that  the  energy  of  the  Church  in  in- 
tellectually realizing  and  defining  its  doctrines  in  rela- 
tion to  one  another,  should  first  be  directed  towards 
the  objective  side  of  Christian  truth.  The  chief  con- 
troversies of  the  first  four  centuries  and  the  resulting 
definitions  of  doctrine,  concerned  the  nature  of  God 
and  the  Person  of  Christ.  It  was  not  until  these  Theo- 
logical and  Christological  questions  were  well  upon 
their  way  to  final  settlement,  that  the  Church  could 
turn  its  attention  to  the  more  subjective  side  of  truth. 
Meanwhile  she  bore  in  her  bosom  a  full  recognition, 
side  by  side,  of  the  freedom  of  the  will,  the  evil  con- 
sequences of  the  fall,  and  the  necessity  of  divine  grace 
for  salvation.  Individual  writers,  or  even  entire  sec- 
tions of  the  Church,  might  exhibit  a  special  tendency 
to  emphasize  one  or  another  of  the  elements  that  made 
up  this  deposit  of  faith  that  was  the  common  inheri- 
tance of  all.  The  East,  for  instance,  laid  especial  stress 
on  free  will.  The  West  dwelt  more  pointedly  on  the 
ruin  of  the  human  race  and  the  absolute  need  of  God's 
grace  for  salvation.  But  the  Eastern  theologians  did  not 
forget  the  universal  sinfulness  and  need  of  redemption, 
or  the  necessity,  for  the  realization    of  that    redemp- 


4       A  UGUSTINE  AND  THE  PELA GIAN  CONTRO  VERSY. 

tion,  of  God's  gracious  influences.  Nor  did  those  of 
the  West  deny  the  self-determination  or  accountability 
of  men.  All  the  elements  of  the  composite  doctrine  ol 
man  were  everywhere  confessed.  But  they  were  vari- 
ously emphasized,  according  to  the  temper  of  the  writ- 
ers or  the  controversial  demands  of  the  times.  Such  a 
state  of  affairs,  however,  was  an  invitation  to  heresy, 
and  a  prophecy  of  controversy  ;  just  as  the  simul- 
taneous confession  of  the  Unity  of  God  and  the  Deity 
of  Christ,  or  of  the  Deity  and  the  Humanity  of  Christ, 
inevitably  carried  in  its  train  a  series  of  heresies  and 
controversies,  until  the  definitions  of  the  doctrines  of 
the  Trinity  and  of  the  Person  of  Christ  were  complete. 
In  like  manner,  it  was  inevitable  that  sooner  or  later 
some  one  should  arise  who  would  throw  so  one-sided 
a  stress  upon  one  element  or  the  other  of  the  Church's 
teaching  as  to  salvation,  as  to  betray  himself  into 
heresy,  and  drive  the  Church,  through  controversy 
with  him,  into  a  more  precise  definition  of  the  doctrines 
of  free  will  and  grace  in  their  mutual  relations. 

This  new  heresiarch  came,  at  the  opening  of  the  fifth 
century,  in  the  person  of  the  British  monk,  Pelagius. 
The  novelty  of  the  doctrine  which  he  taught  is  repeat- 
edly asserted  by  Augustine,1  and  is  evident  to  the  his- 
torian. But  it  consisted  less  in  the  emphasis  that  he 
laid  on  free  will,  than  in  the  fact  that,  in  order  to  em- 
phasize free  will,  he  denied  the  ruin  of  the  race  and 
the  necessity  of  grace.  This  was  not  only  new  in 
Christianity  ;  it  was  even  anti-Christian.  Jerome,  as 
well  as  Augustine,  saw  this  at  the  time,  and  spoke  of 
Pelagianism  as  the  "  heresy  of  Pythagoras  and  Zeno.  "2 
Modern  writers  of  various  schools  have  more  or 
less  fully  recognized  it.  Thus  Dean  Milman  thinks 
that  "  the  greater  part"  of  Pelagius'  letter  to  Demetrias 
"  might  have  been  written  by  an  ancient  academic."  3 

1  On  the  Merits  and  Remission  of  Sins,  iii.  6,  n,  12  ;  Against 
Two  Letters  of  the  Pelagians,  iv.  32  ;  Against  Julian,  i.  4  ;  On 
Heresies,  88  ;  and  often  elsewhere.  Jerome  found  roots  for  the  theory 
in  Origen  and  Rufinus  {Letter  133,  3),  but  this  is  a  different  matter  : 
compare  Augustine,  On  Original  Sin,  25. 

8  Preface  to  Book  iv.  of  his  work  on  Jeremiah. 

8  Latin  Christianity,  i.  166,  note  2. 


ORIGIN  AND   NATURE   OF  PELAGIANISM.  5 

Dr.  De  Pressense  identifies  the  Pelagian  idea  of  liberty 
with  that  of  Paganism.1  And  Bishop  Hefele  openly 
declares  that  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  Pelagianism, 
"  that  man  is  virtuous  entirely  of  his  own  merit,  not  of 
the  gift  of  grace,"  seems  to  him  "  to  be  a  rehabilitation 
of  the  general  heathen  view  of  the  world,"  and  com- 
pares with  it  Cicero's  words,2  "  For  gold,  lands,  and 
all  the  blessings  of  life,  we  have  to  return  thanks  to  the 
Gods  ;  but  no  one  ever  returned  thanks  to  the  Gods 
for  virtues."3  The  struggle  with  Pelagianism  was 
thus  in  reality  a  struggle  for  the  very  foundations  of 
Christianity.  Quite  as  dangerously  as  in  the  pre- 
vious Theological  and  Christological  controversies, 
here  the  practical  substance  of  Christianity  was  in 
jeopardy.  The  real  question  at  issue  was  whether 
there  was  any  need  for  Christianity  at  all  ;  whether  by 
his  own  power  man  might  not  attain  eternal  felicity  ; 
whether  the  function  of  Christianity  was  to  save,  or 
only  to  render  an  eternity  of  happiness  more  easily  at- 
tainable by  man.4 

Genetically  speaking,  Pelagianism  was  the  daughter 
of  legalism  ;  but  when  it  itself  conceived,  it  brought 
forth  an  essential  deism.  It  is  not  without  significance 
that  its  originators  were  "a  certain  sort  of  monks," 
that  is,  laymen  of  ascetic  life.  From  that  point  of  view 
the  Divine  law  appears  as  a  collection  of  separate  com- 
mandments, moral  perfection  as  a  mere  complex  of 
separate  virtues,  and  a  distinct  value  as  a  meritorious 
demand  on  Divine  approbation  is  ascribed  to  each  good 
work  or  attainment  in  the  exercises  of  piety,  ft  was 
because  this  was  essentially  his  point  of  view  that 
Pelagius  could  regard  man's  powers  as  sufficient  to  the 
attainment  of  sanctity,  and  could  even  assert  it  to  be 
possible  for  man  to  do  more  than  is  required  of  him. 
But  this  involves  an  essentially  deistic  conception  of 
man's  relations  to  his  Maker.  God  has  endowed  His 
creature  with  a  capacity  {possibilitas)  or  ability  {posse) 

1  Trots  Prem.  Siecles,  ii.  375."^,  &  De  Natura  Deorum,  iii.  36. 

3  History  of  the  Councils  of  the  Church  (E.  T.),  ii.  446,  note  3. 

4  Compare    the    excellent    statement    in  Thomasius'  Dogtnenge- 
schichte,  i.  483. 


6        AUG  USTINE  AND  THE  PELA  GIAN  CONTRO  VERS  Y. 

for  action  ;  and  it  is  for  him  to  use  it.  Man  is  thus  a 
machine,  which,  just  because  it  is  well  made,  needs  no 
Divine  interference  for  its  right  working  ;  and  the 
Creator,  having  once  framed  him  and  endowed  him 
with  the  posse,  henceforth  leaves  the  velle  and  the  esse 
to  him. 

At  this  point  we  have  touched  the  central  and  forma- 
tive principle  of  Pelagianism.  It  lies  in  the  assump- 
tion of  the  plenary  ability  of  man  ;  his  ability  to  do  all 
that  righteousness  can  demand — to  work  out  not  only 
his  own  salvation,  but  also  his  own  perfection.  This 
is  the  core  of  the  whole  theory  ;  and  all  the  other  pos- 
tulates not  only  depend  upon  it,  but  arise  out  of  it. 
Both  chronologically  and  logically  this  is  the  root  of 
the  system. 

When  we  first  hear  of  Pelagius  he  is  already  ad- 
vanced in  years,  living  in  Rome  in  the  odour  of  sanc- 
tity,1 and  in  the  enjoyment  of  a  well-deserved  reputa- 
tion for  zeal  in  exhorting  others  to  a  good  life.  This 
zeal  grew  especially  warm  against  those  who,  when 
charged  with  their  sins,  endeavoured  to  shelter  them- 
selves behind  the  weakness  of  nature.2  He  was  out- 
raged by  the  excuses  which  were  commonly  made  on 
such  occasions, — "  It  is  hard  !"  "  It  is  difficult  !" 
"  We  are  not  able  !"  "  We  are  men  !"  "  O  blind 
madness  !"  he  cried  :  "we  accuse  God  of  a  twofold 
ignorance, — that  He  does  not  seem  to  know  what  He 
has  made,  nor  what  He  has  commanded, — as  if  forget- 
ting the  human  weakness  of  which  He  is  Himself  the 
author,  He  has  imposed  laws  on  man  which  he  cannot 
endure."3  He  himself  tells  us4  that  it  was  his  cus- 
tom, therefore,  whenever  he  had  to  speak  on  moral 
improvement  and  the  conduct  of  a  holy  life,  to  begin 
by  pointing  out  the  power  and  quality  of  human  na- 
ture, and  by  showing  what  it  is  capable  of  accom- 
plishing. For  (he  says)  he  esteemed  it  of  little  use  to 
exhort  men  to  do   what  they  deem  impossible  :  hope 

1  On  the  Proceedings  of  Pelagius,  46  ;  On  the  Merits  and  Re- 
mission of  Sins,  iii.  1  ;  Epistle  186,  etc. 

2  On  Nature  and  Grace,  1.  3  Epistle  to  Demetrias,  16. 
4  Do.  2  and  19. 


ORIGIN  AND  NATURE   OF  PELAGIANISM.  J 

must  rather  be  our  companion,  and  all  longing  and 
effort  die  when  we  despair  of  attaining.  So  exceed- 
ingly ardent  an  advocate  was  he  of  man's  unaided  abil- 
ity to  do  all  that  God  commanded,  that  when  there 
was  repeated  in  his  hearing  Augustine's  noble  and  en- 
tirely scriptural  prayer — ' '  Give  what  Thou  command- 
est,  and  command  what  Thou  wilt" — he  was  unable  to 
endure  it.  With  such  violence  did  he  contradict  it 
that  he  almost  became  embroiled  in  a  quarrel.1  *  The  7 
powers  of  man  were  gifts  of  God  ;  and  it  was,  there- 
fore (he  held),  a  reproach  against  God,  as  if  He  had 
made  man  ill  or  evil,  to  believe  that  they  were  insuffi- 
cient for  the  keeping  of  His  law.  Nay,  do  what  we 
will,  we  cannot  rid  ourselves  of  their  sufficiency  : 
"  whether  we  will,  or  whether  ^we  will  not,  we  have  / 
the  capacity  of  not  sinning."2  "I  say,"  he  says, 
"  that  man  is  able  to  be  without  sin,  and  that  he  is  able 
to  keep  the  commandments  of  God."  This  sufficiently 
direct  statement  of  human  ability  is  in  reality  the  hinge 
of  his  whole  system. 

There  were  three  specially  important  corollaries 
which  flowed  from  so  unmeasured  an  assertion  of 
human  ability,  and  Augustine  himself  recognized  these 
as  the  chief  elements  of  the  Pelagian  system.3  It 
would  be  inexplicable  on  such  an  assumption,  it  no  man 
had  ever  used  his  ability  in  keeping  God's  law  ;  and 
Pelagius  therefore  consistently  asserted  not  only  that 
all  might  be  sinless  if  they  chose,  but  also  that  many 
saints,  even  before  Christ,  had  actually  lived  free  from 
sin.  Again,  it  would  follow  from  man's  inalienable 
ability  to  be  free  from  sin,  that  each  man  comes  into 
the  world  without  entailment  of  sin  or  moral  weakness 
from  the  past  acts  of  men  ;  and  Pelagius  consistently 
denied  the  whole  doctrine  of  original  sin.  And  still 
again,  it  would  follow  from  the  assumption  of  so  per- 
fect a  natural  ability,  that  man  has  no  need  of  super- 
natural assistance  in  his  striving  to  obey  righteous- 
ness ;  and   Pelagius  consistently  denied  both  the  need 

1  On  the  Gift  of  Persevera?ice,  53.      2  On  Nature  and  Grace,  49. 
3  On  the  Gift  of  Perseverance,  4  ;  Against  Two  Letters  of  the 
Petagians,  iii.  24  ;  iv.  2  sq. 


8        AUG  US  TINE  A  ND  THE  PEL  A  GIA  N  CON  TR  0  VER  S  Y. 

and  the  reality  of  divine  grace  in  the  sense  of  an  inward 
help  (and  especially  of  a  prevenient  help)  to  man's 
weakness. 

It  was  upon  this  last  point  that  the  greatest  stress 
was  laid  in  the  controversy.  Augustine  was  most  of 
all  disturbed  that  God's  grace  was  denied  and  opposed. 
No  doubt  the  Pelagians  spoke  constantly  of  "  grace." 
But  they  meant  by  grace"  the  primal  endowment  of 
man  with  free  will,  and  the  subsequent  aid  given  him  in 
order  to  its  proper  use  by  the  revelation  of  the  law  and 
the  teaching  of  the  gospel,  and,  above  all,  by  the  for- 
giveness of  past  sins  in  Christ  and  by  Christ's  holy 
example.1  Anything  beyond  this  external  help  they 
utterly  denied.  And  they  denied  that  this  external 
help  itself  was  absolutely  necessary,  affirming  that  it 
only  rendered  it  easier  for  man  to  do  what  otherwise 
he  had  plenary  ability  for  doing.  Chronologically, 
this  contention  seems  to  have  preceded  the  assertion 
which  must  logically  lie  at  its  base— of  the  freedom  of 
man  from  any  taint,  corruption,  or  weakness  due  to 
sin.  It  was  in  order  that  they  might  deny  that  man 
needed  help,  that  they  denied  that  Adam's  sin  had  any 
further  effect  on  his  posterity  than  might  arise  from 
his  bad  example.  "  Before  the  action  of  his  own 
proper  will,"  said  Pelagius  roundly,  "  that  only  is  in 
man  which  God  made."2  "As  we  are  procreated 
without  virtue,"  he  said,  "  so  also  without  vice."3  In 
a  word,  "  nothing  that  is  good  or  evil,  on  account  of 
which  we  are  either  praiseworthy  or  blameworthy,  is 
born  with  us, — it  is  rather  done  by  us  ;  for  we  are  born 
with  capacity  for  either,  but  provided  with  neither."  4 
So  his  follower,  Julian,  plainly  asserts  his  "  faith  that 
God  creates  men  obnoxious  to  no  sin,  but  full  of  natu- 
ral innocence,  and  with  capacity  for  voluntary  vir- 
tues."6    So  intrenched  is  free  will  in  nature,  that,  ac- 


1  On  the  Spirit  and  Letter,  4  ;  On  Nature  and  Grace,  53  ;  On  the 
Proceedings  of  Pelagius,  20,  22,  38  ;  On  the  Grace  of  Christ,  2,  3,  8, 
31,42,45  ;  Against  Two  Letters  of  the  Pelagians,  iv.  11  ;  On  Grace 
and  Free  Will,  23-26,  and  often. 

4  On  Original  Sin,  14.  3  Ibid.  *  Ibid. 

5  The  Unfinished  Work,  iii.  82. 


ORIGIN  AND  NATURE   OF  PELAGIAN1SM.  9 

cording  to  Julian,  it  is  "  just  as  complete  after  sins  as 
it  was  before  sins  ;"  '  and  what  this  means  may  be 
gathered  from  Pelagius'  definition  in  the  Confession 
of  Faith  that  he  sent  to  Innocent  :  "  We  say  that  man 
is  always  able  both  to  sin  and  not  to  sin,  so  that  we 
may  confess  that  we  have  tree  will." 

That  sin  in  such  circumstances  was  so  common  as  to 
be  well-nigh  universal,  was  accounted  for  by  the  bad 
example  of  Adam  and  the  power  of  habit,  the  latter 
being  conceived  as  simply  the  result  of  imitation  of  the 
former.  "  Nothing  makes  well-doing  so  hard,"  writes 
Pelagius  to  Demetrias,  "as  the  long  custom  of  sins 
which  begins  from  childhood  and  gradually  brings  us 
more  and  more  under  its  power  until  it  seems  to  have 
in  some  degree  the  force  of  nature  {vim  natures)."  He 
is  even  ready  to  allow  for  the  force  of  habit,  in  a  broad 
way,  on  the  world  at  large  ;  and  so  divides  all  history 
into  progressive  periods,  marked  by  God's  (external) 
grace.  At  first  the  light  of  nature  was  so  strong  that 
men  by  it  alone  could  live  in  holiness.  And  it  was 
only  when  men's  manners  became  corrupt  and  tar- 
nished nature  began  to  be  insufficient  for  holy  living, 
that  by  God's  grace  the  law  was  given  as  an  addition 
to  mere  nature  ;  and  by  it  "  the  original  lustre  was  re- 
stored to  nature  after  its  blush  had  been  impaired." 
And  so  again,  after  the  habit  of  sinning  once  more  pre- 
vailed among  men,  and  "  the  law  became  unequal  to 
the  task  of  curing  it,"2  Christ  was  given,  furnishing 
men  with  forgiveness  of  sins,  exhortations  to  imitation 
of  His  example  and  the  holy  example  itself.3  Thus  a 
progressive  deterioration  was  confessed,  and  such  a 
deterioration  as  rendered  desirable  at  least  two  super- 
natural interpositions — in  the  giving  .of  the  law  and  the 
coming  of  Christ.  Yet  no  corruption  of  nature,  even 
by  growing  habit,  was  really  allowed.  It  was  only  an 
ever-increasing  facility  in  imitating  vice  which  arose 
from  so  long  a  schooling  in   evil.     And  all  that  was 

1  Do.  i.  91  ;  compare  do.  i.  48,  60  ;  ii.  20.  "  There  is  nothing  of 
sin  in  man,  if  there  is  nothing  of  his  own  will."  "  There  is  no  origi- 
nal sin  in  infants  at  all." 

8  On  Original  Sin,  30.  s  On  the  Grace  of  Christ,  43. 


IO     A  UGUSTINE  AND  THE  PELAGIAN  CONTRO  VERS  Y. 

needed  to  rescue  men  from  it  was  a  new  explanation  of 
what  was  right  (in  the  law),  or,  at  the  most,  the  encour- 
agement of  forgiveness  for  what  was  already  done,  and 
a  holy  example  (in  Christ)  for  imitation.  Pelagius  still 
asserted  our  continuous  possession  of  "  a  free  will 
which  is  unimpaired  for  sinning  and  for  not  sinning  ;" 
and  Julian,  that  "  our  free  will  is  just  as  full  after  sins 
as  it  was  before  sins" — although  Augustine  does  not 
fail  to  twit  him  with  a  charge  ot  inconsistency.1 

The  peculiar  individualism  of  the  Pelagian  view  of 
the  world  comes  out  strongly  in  their  failure  to  per- 
ceive the  effect  of  habit  on  nature  itself.  Just  as  they 
conceived  of  virtue  as  an  agglomeration  of  virtuous  acts, 
so  they  conceived  of  sin  exclusively  as  an  act,  or  mass  ot 
disconnected  acts.  They  appear  not  to  have  risen  above 
the  essentially  heathen  view  which  had  no  notion  of 
holiness  except  as  a  series  of  acts  of  holiness,  or  of  sin 
except  as  a  like  series  of  sinful  acts.2  Thus  the  will  was 
isolated  from  its  acts,  and  the  acts  from  each  other,  and 
all  organic  connection  or  continuity  of  life  was  not  only 
overlooked  but  denied.3  After  each  act  of  the  will, 
man  stood  exactly  where  he  did  before  :  indeed,  this 
conception  scarcely  allows  for  the  existence  of  a  "  man" 
— only  a  willing  machine  is  left,  at  each  click  of  the 
action  of  which  the  spring  regains  its  original  position, 
and  is  equally  ready  as  before  to  perform  its  function. 
In  such  a  conception  there  was  no  place  for  character  : 
freedom  of  will  was  all.  Thus  it  was  not  an  unnatural 
mistake  which  they  made,  when  they  forgot  the  man 
altogether,  and  attributed  to  the  faculty  of  free  will, 
under  the  name  of  "  possibilitas"  or  "posse"  the  ability 
that  belongs  rather  to  the  man  whose  faculty  it  is  and 
who  is  properly  responsible  for  the  use  he  makes  of  it. 
Here  lies  the  essential  error  of  their  doctrine  of  tree 

1  The  Unfinished  Work,  i.  91  ;  compare  69. 

2  Dr.  Matheson  finely  says  {Expositor,  i.  ix.  21),  "There  is  the 
same  difference  between  the  Christian  and  Pagan  idea  of  prayer  as 
there  is  between  the  Christian  and  Pagan  idea  of  sin.  Paganism 
knows  nothing  of  sin,  it  knows  only  sins  :  it  has  no  conception  of  the 
principle  of  evil.it  comprehends  only  a  succession  of  sinful  acts." 
This  is  Pelagianism  too. 

3  Compare  Schaff,  Church  History,  iii.  804  ;  and  Thomasius,  Dog- 
mengeschichte,  i.  487-8. 


ORIGIN  AND  NATURE    OF  PELAGIANISM.  II 

will.  They  looked  upon  freedom  in  its  form  only,  and 
not  in  its  matter ;  and,  keeping-  man  in  perpetual  and 
hopeless  equilibrium  between  good  and  evil,  they  al- 
lowed for  no  growth  of  character  and  permitted  no 
advantage  to  accrue  to  the  man  himself  from  his  suc- 
cessive choices  of  good.  It  need  not  surprise  us  that  the 
type  of  thought  which  thus  dissolved  the  organism  of 
the  man  into  an  aggregation  of  disconnected  voluntary 
acts,  failed  to  comprehend  the  solidarity  of  the  race. 
To  the  Pelagian,  Adam  was  a  man,  nothing  more  ;  and 
it  was  simply  unthinkable  that  any  act  of  his  that  left 
his  own  subsequent  acts  uncommitted,  could  entail  sin 
and  guilt  upon  other  men.  The  same  alembic  that  dis- 
solved the  individual  into  a  succession  of  voluntary 
acts,  could  not  fail  to  separate  the  race  into  a  heap  of 
unconnected  units.  If  sin,  as  Julian  declared,  is  noth- 
ing but  will,  and  the  will  itself  remained  intact  after 
each  act,  how  could  the  individual  act  of  an  individual 
will  condition  the  acts  of  men  as  yet  unborn  ?  By 
"  imitation"  of  his  act  alone  could,  under  such  a  con- 
ception, other  men  be  affected.  And  this  carried  with 
it  the  corresponding  view  of  man's  relation  to  Christ. 
Christ  could  forgive  us  the  sins  we  had  committed  ; 
He  could  teach  us  the  true  way  ;  He  could  set  us  a 
holy  example  ;  and  He  could  exhort  us  to  its  imitation. 
But  He  could  not  touch  us  to  enable  us  to  will  the 
good,  without  destroying  the  absolute  equilibrium  of 
the  will  between  good  and  evil.  And  to  destroy  this 
was  to  destroy  the  freedom  of  the  will,  which  was  the 
crowning  good  of  our  divinely  created  nature.  Surely 
the  Pelagians  forgot  that  man  was  not  made  for  will, 
but  will  for  man. 

In  defending  their  theory,  as  we  are  told  by  Augus- 
tine, there  were  five  claims  that  they  especially  made 
for  it.1  It  allowed  them  to  praise  as  was  their  due, 
the  creature  that  God  had  made,  the  marriage  that  He 
had  instituted,  the  law  that  He  had  given,  the  free  will 
which  was  His  greatest  endowment  to  man,  and  the 
saints  who  had  followed  His  counsels.  By  this  they 
meant  that  they  proclaimed  the  sinless  perfection  of 

1  Against  Two  Letters  of  the  Pelagians,  iii.  25,  and  iv.  at  the  be- 
ginning. 


12      AUG  US  TINE  A  ND  THE  PEL  A  GIA  N  CON  TRO  VERS  Y. 

human  nature  in  every  man  as  he  was  brought  into  the 
world,  and  opposed  this  to  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  ; 
the  purity  and  holiness  of  marriage  and  the  sexual  ap- 
petites, and  opposed  this  to  the  doctrine  of  the  trans- 
mission of  sin  ;  the  ability  of  the  law,  as  well  as  and 
apart  from  the  gospel,  to  bring  men  into  eternal  life, 
and  opposed  this  to  the  necessity  of  inner  grace  ;  the  ad- 
equacy of  free  will  to  choose  the  good,  and  opposed  this 
to  the  necessity  of  divine  aid  ;  and  the  perfection  of  the 
lives  of  the  saints,  and  opposed  this  to  the  doctrine  of 
universal  sinfulness.  Other  questions,  concerning  the 
origin  of  souls,  the  necessity  of  baptism  for  infants,  the 
original  immortality  of  Adam,  lay  more  upon  the  skirts 
of  the  controversy.  As  it  was  an  obvious  fact  that  all 
men  died,  they  could  not  admit  that  Adam's  death  was 
a  consequence  of  sin  lest  they  should  be  forced  to  con- 
fess that  his  sin  had  injured  all  men  ;  they  therefore 
asserted  that  physical  death  belonged  to  the  very  na- 
ture of  man,  and  that  Adam  would  have  died  even  had 
he  not  sinned.1  So,  as  it  was  impossible  to  deny  that 
the  Church  everywhere  baptized  infants,  they  could 
not  refuse  them  baptism  without  confessing  themselves 
innovators  in  doctrine  ;  and  therefore  they  contended 
that  infants  were  not  baptized  for  forgiveness  of  sin, 
but  in  order  to  attain  a  higher  state  of  bliss  than  that 
which  naturally  belongs  to  innocence.  Finally,  they 
conceived  that  if  it  were  admitted  that  souls  are  direct- 
ly created  by  God  for  each  birth,  it  could  not  be  as- 
serted that  they  come  into  the  world  soiled  by  sin  and 
under  condemnation  ;  and  therefore  they  loudly  cham- 
pioned the  creationist  theory  of  the  origin  of  souls. 

The  teachings  of  the  Pelagians,  it  will  be  readily 
seen,  easily  welded  themselves  into  a  system,  the  es- 
sential and  formative  elements  of  which  were  entirely 
new  in  the  Christian  Church.  It  was  this  startlingly 
new  reading  of  man's  condition,  powers,  and  depend- 
ence for  salvation  that  broke  like  a  thunderbolt  upon 
the  Western  Church  at  the  opening  of  the  fifth  cen- 
tury, and  forced  her  to  reconsider,  from  the  founda- 
tions, her  whole  teaching  as  to  man  and  his  salvation. 

1  This  belongs  to  the  earlier  Pelagianism  ;  Julian  was  ready  to 
admit  that  death  came  from  Adam,  but  not  that  sin  did. 


EXTERNAL   HISTORY  OF  PELAGIAN   CONTROVERSY.    13 


The    External   History   of  the    Pelagian    Con- 
troversy. 

Pelagius  seems  to  have  been  already  somewhat  soft- 
ened by  increasing  age  when  he  came  to  Rome  about 
the  opening  ol  the  fifth  century.  He  was  also  consti- 
tutionally averse  to  controversy.  In  his  zeal  for  Chris- 
tian morals,  and  in  his  conviction  that  no  man  would 
attempt  to  do  what  he  was  not  persuaded  he  had  nat- 
ural power  to  perform,  he  diligently  propagated  his 
doctrines  privately.  But  he  was  careful  to  arouse  no 
opposition,  and  was  content  to  make  what  progress  he 
could  quietly  and  without  open  discussion.  His  meth- 
ods of  work  sufficiently  appear  in  the  pages  of  his  Com- 
mentary  on  the  Epistles  of  Saint  Paul,  which  was  written 
and  published  during  these  years,  and  which  exhibits 
learning  and  a  sober  and  correct  but  somewhat  shallow 
exegetical  skill.  In  this  work,  he  manages  to  give  ex- 
pression to  all  the  main  elements  of  his  system.  But 
he  always  introduces  them  indirectly,  not  as  the  true 
exegesis  but  by  way  of  objections  to  the  ordinary 
teaching  which  were  in  need  of  discussion.  The  most 
important  fruit  of  his  residence  in  Rome  was  the  con- 
version to  his  views  of  the  Advocate  Ccelestius,  who 
brought  the  courage  of  youth  and  the  argumentative 
training  of  a  lawyer  to  the  propagation  of  the  new 
teaching.  It  was  through  him  that  it  first  broke  out 
into  public  controversy,  and  received  its  first  ecclesias- 
tical examination  and  rejection.  Fleeing  from  Alaric's 
second  raid  on  Rome,  the  two  friends  landed  together 
in  Africa  (A.D.  411),  whence  Pelagius  soon  afterwards 
departed  for  Palestine,  leaving  the  bolder  and  more 
contentious '  Ccelestius  behind  at  Carthage.  Here 
Ccelestius  sought  ordination  as  a  presbyter.  But  the 
Milanese  deacon  Paulinus  stood  forward  in  accusation 

1  On  Original  Sin,  13. 


14     A  UGUSTINE  AND  THE  PELAGIAN  CONTRO  VERSY. 

of  him  as  a  heretic,  and  the  matter  was  brought  before 
a  synod  under  the  presidency  of  Bishop  Aurelius.1 

Paulinus'  charge  consisted  of  seven  items,3  which 
asserted  that  Ccelestius  taught  the  following  heresies  : 
that  Adam  was  made  mortal,  and  would  have  died 
whether  he  sinned  or  did  not  sin  ;  that  the  sin  of  Adam 
injured  himself  alone,  not  the  human  race  ;  that  new- 
born children  are  in  that  state  in  which  Adam  was  be- 
fore his  sin  ;  that  the  whole  human  race  does  not,  on 
the  one  hand,  die  on  account  of  the  death  or  the  fall 
of  Adam,  nor,  on  the  other,  rise  again  on  account  of 
the  resurrection  of  Christ  ;  that  infants,  even  though 
not  baptized,  have  eternal  life  ;  that  the  law  leads  to 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  in  the  same  way  as  the  gospel ;. 
and  that,  even  before  the  Lord's  coming,  there  had 
been  men  without  sin.  Only  two  fragments  of  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  synod  in  investigating  this  charge  have 
come  down  to  us.3  But  it  is  easy  to  see  that  Coelestius 
was  contumacious  and  refused  to  reject  any  of  the 
propositions  charged  against  him,  except  the  one  which 
had  reference  to  the  salvation  of  infants  that  die  unbap- 
tized,— the  sole  one  that  admitted  of  sound  defence. 
As  touching  the  transmission  of  sin,  he  would  only  say 
that  it  was  an  open  question  in  the  Church,  and  that 
he  had  heard  both  opinions  from  Church  dignitaries  ; 
so  that  the  subject  needed  investigation,  and  should 
not  be  made  the  ground  for  a  charge  of  heresy.  The 
natural  result  was,  that,  on  refusing  to  condemn  the 
propositions  charged  against  him,  he  was  himself  con- 
demned and  excommunicated  by  the  synod.  Soon 
afterwards  he  sailed  to  Ephesus,  where  he  obtained 
the  ordination  which  he  sought. 

Meanwhile  Pelagius  was  living  quietly  in  Palestine, 
whither  in  the  summer  of  415  a  young  Spanish  pres- 
byter, Paulus  Orosius  by  name,  came  with  letters  from 

1  Early  in  412,  or,  less  probably,  according  to  the  Ballerini  and 
Hefele,  411. 

2  See  On  Original  Sin,  2,  3,  12  ;  On  the  Proceedings  of  Pelagius, 
23.  They  are  also  given  by  Marius  Mercator  (Migne,  xlviii.  69,  70), 
by  whom  the  fifth  item  (on  the  salvation  ot  unbaptized  infants)  is 
omitted, — though  apparently  by  an  error. 

3  Preserved  by  Augustine,  On  Original  Sin,  3,  4. 


EXTERNAL   HISTORY  OF  PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY.    15 

Augustine  to  Jerome,  and  was  invited,  near  the  end  of 
July  in  that  year,  to  a  diocesan  synod  presided  over 
by  John  of  Jerusalem.  There  he  was  asked  about 
Pelagius  and  Coelestius,  and  proceeded  to  give  an  ac- 
count of  the  condemnation  of  the  latter  at  the  synod 
of  Carthage,  and  of  Augustine's  literary  refutation  of 
the  former.  Pelagius  was  sent  for,  and  the  proceedings 
became  an  examination  into  his  teachings.  The  chief 
matter  brought  up  was  his  assertion  of  the  possibility 
of  men  living  sinlessly  in  this  world.  But  the  favour 
of  the  bishop  towards  him,  the  intemperance  of  Orosius, 
and  the  difficulty  of  communication  between  the  par- 
ties arising  from  difference  of  language,  combined  so 
to  clog  proceedings  that  nothing  was  done  ;  and  the 
whole  matter,  as  Western  in  its  origin,  was  referred 
to  the  Bishop  of  Rome  for  examination  and  decision.1 

Soon  afterwards  two  Gallic  bishops, — Heros  of  Aries 
and  Lazarus  of  Aix, — who  were  then  in  Palestine, 
lodged  a  formal  accusation  against  Pelagius  with  the 
metropolitan,  Eulogius  of  Caesarea.  He  convened  a 
synod  of  fourteen  bishops  which  met  at  Lydda  (Dios- 
polis),  in  December  of  the  same  year  (415),  for  the 
trial  of  the  case.  Perhaps  no  greater  ecclesiastical 
farce  was  ever  enacted  than  this  synod  exhibited.2 
When  the  time  arrived,  the  accusers  were  prevented 
from  being  present  by  illness,  and  Pelagius  was  con- 
fronted only  by  the  written  accusation.  This  was  unskil- 
fully drawn,  and  was,  moreover,  written  in  Latin  which 
the  synod  did  not  understand.  It  was,  therefore,  not 
even  consecutively  read,  and  was  only  head  by  head 
rendered  into  Greek  by  an  interpreter.  Pelagius  began 
by  reading  aloud  several  letters  to  himself  from  various 
men  of  reputation  in  the  episcopate,  —among  them  a 
friendly  note  from  Augustine.  Thoroughly  acquainted 
with  both  Latin  and  Greek,  he  was  enabled  skillfully 
to  thread  every  difficulty,  and  pass  safely  through  the 
ordeal.     Jerome  called  this  a  "  miserable  synod,"  and 

1  An  account  of  this  synod  is  given  by  Orosius  himself  in  his  Apol- 
ogy for  the  Freedom  of  the  Will. 

2  A  full  account  and  criticism  of  the  proceedings  are  given  by  Au- 
gustine in  his  On  the  Proceedings  of  Pelagius. 


l6     A  UGUSTINE  AND  THE  PELA GIAN  CONTRO  VERS  Y. 

not  unjustly.  At  the  same  time  it  is  sufficient  to  vindi- 
cate the  honesty  and  earnestness  of  the  bishops  inten- 
tions, that,  even  in  such  circumstances  and  despite  the 
more  undeveloped  opinions  of  the  East  on  the  ques- 
tionsinvolved,  Pelagius  escaped  condemnation  only  by 
a  course  of  most  ingenious  disingenuousness,-  and  only 
at  the  cost  both  of  disowning  Ccelestius  and  his  teach- 
ings, of  which  he  had  been  the  real  father,  and  of  lead- 
ing the  synod  to  believe  that  he  was  anathematizing 
the  very  doctrines  which  he  was  himself  proclaiming. 
There  is  really  no  possibility  of  doubting,  as  any  one 
will  see  who  reads  the  proceedings  of  the  synod,  that 
Pelagius  obtained  his  acquittal  here  either  by  a  "  lying 
condemnation  or  a  tricky  interpretation"  '  of  his  own 
teachings  ;  and  Augustine  is  perfectly  justified  in  as- 
serting that  the  "heresy  was  not  acquitted,  but  the 
man  who  denied  the  heresy,"2  and  who  would  himself 
have  been  anathematized  had  he  not  anathematized  the 
heresy. 

But,  however  obtained,  the  acquittal  of  Pelagius  was 
an  accomplished  fact.  Neither  he  nor  his  friends  de- 
layed to  make  the  most  widely  extended  use  of  their 
good  fortune.  Pelagius  himself  was  jubilant.  Ac- 
counts of  the  synodal  proceedings  were  sent  to  the 
West,  not  altogether  free  from  uncandid  alterations  ; 
and  Pelagius  soon  put  forth  a  work,  ///  Defence  of  Free- 
Will,  in  which  he  triumphed  in  his  acquittal  and  ' '  ex- 
plained his  explanations"  at  the  synod.  Nor  were  the 
champions  of  the  opposite  opinion  idle.  As  soon  as 
the  news  arrived  in  North  Africa,  and  before  the 
authentic  records  of  the  synod  had  reached  that  region, 
the  condemnation  of  Pelagius  and  Ccelestius  was  re- 
affirmed in  two  provincial  synods — one,  consisting  ot 
sixty-eight  bishops,  met  at  Carthage  about  midsummer 
of  416  ;  and  the  other,  consisting  of  about  sixty  bish- 
ops, met  soon  afterwards  at  Mileve  (Mila).  Thus  Pal- 
estine and  North  Africa  were  arrayed  against  each 
other,  and  it  became  of  great  importance  to  obtain  the 
support  of  the  Patriarchal  See  of  Rome.     Both  sides 

1  On  Original  Sin,  13,  at  the  end. 

2  Augustine's  Sermons  (Migne,  v.  1511). 


EXTERNAL   HISTORY  OF  PELAGIAN   CONTROVERSY.    17 

made  the  attempt,  but  fortune  favored  the  Africans. 
Each  of  the  North- African  synods  sent  a  synodal  letter 
to  Innocent  I.,  then  Bishop  of  Rome,  engaging  his  as- 
sent to  their  action.  To  these,  five  bishops,  Aurelius 
of  Carthage  and  Augustine  among  them,  added  a  third 
"  familiar"  letter  of  their  own,  in  which  they  urged 
upon  Innocent  to  examine  into  Pelagius'  teaching,  and 
provided  him  with  the  material  on  which  he  might 
base  a  decision.  The  letters  reached  Innocent  in  time 
for  him  to  take  advice  of  his  clergy  and  send  favor- 
able replies  on  Jan.  27,  417.  In  these  he  expressed  his 
agreement  with  the  African  decisions,  asserted  the 
necessity  of  inward  grace,  rejected  the  Pelagian  theory 
of  infant  baptism,  and  declared  Pelagius  and  Ccelestius 
excommunicated  until  they  should  return  to  orthodoxy. 

In  about  six  weeks  more  Innocent  was  dead. 
Zosimus,  his  successor,  was  scarcely  installed  in  his 
place  before  Ccelestius  appeared  at  Rome  in  person  to 
plead  his  cause  ;  while  shortly  afterwards  letters  ar- 
rived from  Pelagius,  addressed  to  Innocent,  and  by  an 
artful  statement  of  his  belief  and  a  recommendation 
from  Praylus,  lately  become  bishop  of  Jerusalem  in 
John's  stead,  attempting  to  enlist  Rome  in  his  favor. 
Zosimus,  who  appears  to  have  been  a  Greek  and  there- 
fore inclined  to  make  little  of  the  merits  of  this  West- 
ern controversy,  went  over  to  Ccelestius  at  once,  upon 
his  profession  of  willingness  to  anathematize  all  doc- 
trines which  the  pontifical  see  had  condemned  or  should 
condemn  ;  and  wrote  a  sharp  and  arrogant  letter  to 
Africa,  proclaiming  Ccelestius  "  catholic,"  and  requir- 
ing the  Africans  to  appear  within  two  months  at  Rome 
to  prosecute  their  charges,  or  else  to  abandon  them. 
On  the  arrival  of  Pelagius'  papers,  this  letter  was  fol- 
lowed by  another  (September,  417),  in  which  Zosimus, 
with  the  approbation  of  his  clergy,  declared  both  Pela- 
gius and  Ccelestius  to  be  orthodox,  and  severely  re- 
buked the  Africans  for  their  hasty  judgment. 

It  is  difficult  to  understand  Zosimus'  action  in  this 
matter.  Neither  of  the  Confessions  presented  by  the 
accused  teachers  ought  to  have  deceived  him.  And  if 
he  was  seizing  the  occasion  to  magnify  the  Roman  see, 


1 8    AUG  US  TINE  A  ND  THE  PEL  A  GIA  N  CON  TR  0  VERS  Y. 

his  mistake  was  dreadful.  Late  in  417,  or  early  in  418, 
the  African  bishops  assembled  at  Carthage,  in  number 
more  than  two  hundred,  and  replied  to  Zosimus  that 
they  had  decided  that  the  sentence  pronounced  against 
Pelagius  and  Ccelestius  should  remain  in  force  until 
those  heretics  should  unequivocally  acknowledge  that 
44  we  are  aided  by  the  grace  of  God,  through  Christ, 
not  only  to  know,  but  also  to  do  what  is  right,  in  each 
single  act,  so  that  without  grace  we  are  unable  to  have, 
think,  speak,  or  do  anything  pertaining  to  piety." 
This  firmness  made  Zosimus  waver.  He  answered 
swellingly  but  timidly,  declaring  that  he  had  maturely 
examined  the  matter,  but  it  had  not  been  his  intention 
finally  to  acquit  Ccelestius  ;  and  now  he  had  left  all 
things  in  the  condition  in  which  they  were  belore,  but 
he  claimed  the  right  of  final  judgment  to  himself.  Mat- 
ters were  hastening  to  a  conclusion,  however,  that 
would  leave  him  no  opportunity  to  escape  from  the 
mortification  of  an  entire  change  of  front.  This  letter 
was  written  on  the  21st  of  March,  418  ;  it  was  received 
in  Africa  on  the  29th  of  April  ;  and  on  the  very  next 
day  an  imperial  decree  was  issued  from  Ravenna  order- 
ing Pelagius  and  Ccelestius  to  be  banished  from  Rome, 
with  all  who  held  their  opinions  ;  while  on  the  next 
day,  May  1,  a  plenary  council  of  about  two  hundred 
bishops  met  at  Carthage,  and  in  nine  canons  condemned 
all  the  essential  features  of  Pelagianism.  Whether  this 
simultaneous  action  was  the  result  of  skilful  arrange- 
ment, can  only  be  conjectured.  Its  effect  was  in  any 
case  necessarily  crushing.  There  could  be  no  appeal 
from  the  civil  decision,  and  it  played  directly  into  the 
hands  of  the  African  definition  of  the  faith. 

The  synod's  nine  canons  part  naturally  into  three  tri- 
ads.1 The  first  of  these  deals  with  the  relation  of  man- 
kind to  original  sin,  and  anathematizes  in  turn  those  who 
assert  that  physical  death  is  a  necessity  of  nature,  and 
not  a  result  of  Adam's  sin  ;  those  who  assert  that  new- 
born children  derive  nothing  of  original  sin  from  Adam 
to  be  expiated  by  the  laver  of  regeneration  ;  and  those 

1  Compare  Canon  Bright's  Introduction  to  his  Select  Anti-Pela- 
gian Treatises,  p.  xli. 


EXTERNAL    HISTORY  OF  PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY.    19 

who  assert  a  distinction  between  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
and  eternal  life,  for  entrance  into  the  former  of  which 
alone  baptism  is  necessary.  The  second  triad  deals 
with  the  nature  of  grace,  and  anathematizes  those  who 
assert  that  grace  brings  only  remission  of  past  sins,  not 
aid  in  avoiding  future  ones  ;  those  who  assert  that 
grace  aids  us  not  to  sin,  only  by  teaching  us  what  is 
sinful,  not  by  enabling  us  to  will  and  do  what  we  know 
to  be  right  ;  and  those  who  assert  that  grace  only  en- 
ables us  to  do  more  easily  what  we  should  without  it 
still  be  able  to  do.  The  third  triad-  deals  with  the  uni- 
versal sinfulness  of  the  race,  and  anathematizes  those 
who  assert  that  the  apostles'  confession  of  sin  (1  John 
i.  8)  is  due  only  to  their  humility  ;  those  who  say  that 
"  Forgive  us  our  trespasses"  in  the  Lord's  Prayer,  is 
pronounced  by  the  saints,  not  for  themselves,  but  for  the 
sinners  in/their  company  ;  and  those  who  say  that  the 
saints  use  these  words  of  themselves  only  out  of  humil- 
ity and  not  truly. /Here  we  see  a  careful  traversing  of 
the  whole  ground  of  the  controversy,  with  a  conscious 
reference  to  the  three  chief  contentions  of  the  Pelagian 
teachers.1 

The  appeal  to  the  civil  power,  by  whomsoever  made, 
was,  of  course,  indefensible,  although  it  accorded  with 
the  opinions  of  the  day  and  was  entirely  approved  by 
Augustine.  But  it  was  the  ruin  of  the  Pelagian  cause. 
Zosimus  found  himself  forced  either  to  go  into  banish- 
ment with  his  wards,  or  to  desert  their  cause.  He  ap- 
pears never  to  have  had  any  personal  convictions  on 
the  dogmatic  points  involved  in  the  controversy,  and 
so,  all  the  more  readily,  yielded  to  the  necessity  of  the 
moment.  He  cited  Ccelestius  to  appear  before  a  coun- 
cil for  a  new  examination.  But  that  heresiarch  con- 
sulted prudence  and  withdrew  from  the  city.  Zosi- 
mus, possibly  in  the  effort  to  appear  a  leader  in  the 
cause  he  had  opposed,  not  only  condemned  and  excom- 
municated the  men  whom  less  than  six  months  before  he 
had  pronounced  "  orthodox"  after  a  "  mature  consid- 
eration of  the  matters  involved,"  but,  in  obedience  to 
the  imperial  decree,  issued  a  stringent  paper  which 

1  See  above,  p.  7,  and  the  passages  in  Augustine  cited  in  note  3. 


2o     A  UGUSTINE  AND  THE  PELA GIAN  CONTRO  VERS  V. 

condemned  Pelagius  and  the  Pelagians,  and  affirmed 
the  African  doctrines  as  to  corruption  of  nature,  true 
grace,  and  the  necessity  of  baptism.  To  this  he  re- 
quired subscription  from  all  bishops  as  a  test  of  ortho- 
doxy. Eighteen  Italian  bishops  refused  their  signa- 
tures, with  Julian  of  Eclanum,  henceforth  to  be  the 
champion  of  the  Pelagian  party,  at  their  head,  and 
were  therefore  deposed,  although  several  of  them  after- 
wards recanted  and  were  restored.  In  Julian,  the 
heresy  obtained  an  advocate  who,  if  aught  could  have 
been  done  for  its  re-instatement,  would  surely  have 
proved  successful.  He  was  the  boldest,  the  strongest, 
at  once  the  most  acute  and  the  most  weighty,  of  all  the 
disputants  of  his  party.  But  the  ecclesiastical  stand- 
ing of  this  heresy  was  already  determined.  The  policy 
of  Zosimus'  test  act  was  imposed  by  imperial  authority 
on  North  Africa  in  419.  The  exiled  bishops  were 
driven  from  Constantinople  by  Atticus  in  424  ;  and 
they  are  said  to  have  been  condemned  at  a  Cilician 
synod  in  423,  and  at  an  Antiochian  one  in  424.  Thus 
the  East  itself  was  preparing  for  the  final  act  in  the 
drama.  The  exiled  bishops  were  with  Nestorius  at 
Constantinople  in  429  ;  and  that  patriarch  unsuccess- 
fully interceded  for  them  with  Coelestine,  then  Bishop 
of  Rome.  The  conjunction  was  ominous.  And  at  the 
ecumenical  synod  at  Ephesus  in  431,  we  again  find  the 
"  Coelestians"  side  by  side  with  Nestorius,  sharers  in 
his  condemnation. 

But  Pelagianism  did  not  so  die  as  not  to  leave  a 
legacy  behind  it.  "  Remainders  of  Pelagianism"  ! 
soon  showed  themselves  especially  in  Southern  Gaul, 
where  a  body  of  monastic  leaders  attempted  to  find  a 
middle  ground  on  which  they  could  stand,  by  allowing 
the  Augustinian  doctrine  of  assisting  grace  but  retain- 
ing the  Pelagian  conception  of  man's  self-determination 
to  good.  We  first  hear  of  them  in  428,  through  letters 
from  two  laymen,  Prosper  and  Hilary,  to  Augustine. 
They  are  described  as  men  who  accepte'd  original  sin 
and  the  necessity  of  grace,  but  asserted  that  men  began 
their  turning  to  God,  and  God  helped  their  beginning. 

1  Prosper's  phrase. 


EXTERNAL   HISTORY  OF  PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY.    2 1 

They  taught l  that  all  men  are  sinners,  and  that  they 
derive  their  sin  from  Adam  ;  that  they  can  by  no  means 
save  themselves,  but  need  God's  assisting  grace  ;  and 
that  this  grace  is  gratuitous  in  the  sense  that  men  can- 
not really  deserve  it,  and  yet  that  it  is  not  irresistible, 
nor  given  always  without  the  occasion  of  its  gift  hav- 
ing been  determined  by  men's  attitude  towards  God  ; 
so  that,  though  not  given  on  account  of  the  merits  of 
men,  it  is  given  according  to  those  merits,  actual  or 
foreseen.  The  recognized  head  of  this  new,  semi- 
Pelagian  movement  was  John  Cassian,  a  pupil  of 
Chrysostom — to  whom  he  attributed  all  that  was  good 
in  his  life  and  will — and  the  fountain-head  of  Gallic 
monasticism  ;  by  his  side  stood  Vincent  of  Lerins. 
The  treatise  which  Augustine  wrote  upon  the  appeal 
of  Hilary  and  Prosper,  so  far  from  ending  the  contro- 
versy, gave  additional  offence.  The  middle  ground 
which  the  semi-Pelagians  assumed  was  supported  by 
appeals  to  doctrinal  tradition,  and  not  only  commended 
itself  to  the  ruling  monastic  consciousness,  but  was 
easily  given  the  appearance  of  well-balanced  modera- 
tion. The  tide  of  Gallic  thought  set  strongly  in  its 
channels  and  departed  ever  more  widely  from  Augus- 
tinianism  until  it  found  in  Faustus  of  Rhegium  a  philo- 
sophical thinker  who  compacted  it  into  something  like 
a  unitary  system.  There  was  an  appearance  that  Gal- 
lic theology  had  broken  out  a  path  of  its  own  which 
was  destined  to  produce  a  permanent  breach  between 
it  and  the  rest  of  the  Church,  and  especially  with 
Rome,  where  the  torch  of  Augustinianism  was  burning 
brightly.2 

The  Augustinian  opposition  was  at  first  led  by  the 
vigorous  controversialist  Prosper  ol  Aquitaine,  "  the 
Troubadour  of  Augustinianism,"  who  in  prose  and 
verse  alike,  but  to  little  apparent  effect,  assaulted  the 
"  ingrates"  who   would  not  give  its  full  rights  to  the 

1  Augustine  gives  their  teaching  carefully  in  his  On  the  Predestina- 
tion of  the  Saints,  2. 

2  An  admirable  account  of  the  development  of  semi-Pelagianism  in 
Gaul  is  given  by  Dr.  C.  F.  Arnold,  in  his  Ccesarius  von  Ar elate  und 
die  gallische  Kirche  seiner  Zeit,  p.  314.  Cf.  Harnack's  Dogmen- 
geschichte,  iii.  219  sq.  (ed.  1  and  2)  ;  Hoch's  Lehre  des  Johannes 
Cassianns  von  Natur  u?id  Gnade  ;  and  Koch's  Der  heilige  Faustus. 


22     A  VGUSTINE  AND  THE  PELA  GIAN  CONTRO  VERS  Y. 

grace  of  God.  Already  in  431  he  obtained  a  letter  from 
Pope  Ccelestine,  addressed  to  the  Gallican  bishops  and 
designed  to  close  the  controversy  in  lavor  of  Augus- 
tinianism  ;  and  from  that  time  the  whole  influence  of 
the  Roman  see  was  freely  used  to  this  end.  It  was 
not,  however,  until  nearly  a  century  later  that  the  con- 
test was  brought  to  a  conclusion  in  a  victory  for  a  weak- 
ened Augustinianism,  under  the  leadership  of  the  wise 
and  good  Csesarius  of  Aries.  As  a  nurseling  of  Lerins, 
Caesarius  came  himself  out  of  the  centre  of  the  semi- 
Pelagian  circle,  and  owed  his  Augustinianism  appar- 
ently to  a  certain  Pomerius,  a  rhetorician  by  profession, 
whom  he  met  at  Aries.  Under  the  influence  of  Caesa- 
rius the  second  Council  of  Orange,  which  convened 
at  that  ancient  town  on  the  third  day  of  July,  529,  drew 
up  a  series  of  articles  which  condemned  the  distinctive 
features  of  semi-Pelagianism,  and  affirmed  an  anxious- 
ly guarded  and  somewhat  attenuated  Augustinianism. 
These  articles  were  framed  with  the  aid  of  Felix  IV. 
and  received  the  ratification  of  Boniface  II.  in  the  fol- 
lowing year.  So  far  as  a  formal  condemnation  could 
reach,  distinctive  semi-Pelagianism  was  suppressed  by 
them  in  the  whole  Western  Church.  This  result  could 
not  have  been  attained  by  leadership  less  great  than 
that  of  Caesarius.  But  the  serious  consequence  at- 
tended the  method  of  compromise  by  which  he  secured 
this  great  achievement,  that  a  weakened  Augustinian- 
ism thus  became  the  norm  of  church-doctrine  for  the 
future.  Crass  Gallic  synergism  was  forever  excluded 
from  Western  church-teaching  ;  but  equally  a  pure 
and  complete  Augustinianism  was  put  henceforth  be- 
yond its  reach.  Distinctive  semi-Pelagianism  must 
hereafter  rank  as  heresy  ;  the  Augustinian  doctrine  of 
"  prevenient  grace"  became  an  essential  element  of 
the  Church's  system.  But  consistent  Augustinianism 
might  easily  also  come  to  be  looked  upon  as  heresy, 
and  the  very  terms  "  predestination"  and  ' '  particular 
redemption"  might  fall  under  the  ban.  In  a  word,  the 
decrees  of  Trent  are  the  natural  sequence  of  the  canons 
of  Orange  ;  and  we  must  trace  it  back  to  these  canons 
that  Thomism  has  proved  the  supreme  height  of 
doctrine  attainable  in  the  Latin  Church. 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN    THE    CONTROVERSY.        23 


Augustine's  Part  in  the  Controversy. 

Both  by  nature  and  by  grace,  Augustine  was  very 
specially  fitted  to  be  the  champion  of  truth  in  this  con- 
troversy. Of  a  naturally  philosophical  temperament, 
he  saw  into  the  springs  ol  life  with  a  vividness  of 
perception  to  which  most  men  are  strangers.  And 
his  own  experiences  in  his  long  resistance  and  final 
yielding  to  the  drawings  of  grace  gave  him  a  clear  ap- 
prehension of  the  great  evangelic  principle  that  God 
seeks  men,  not  men  God,  such  as  no  sophistry  could 
cloud.  Whatever  change  his  philosophy  or  theol- 
ogy might  undergo  in  other  particulars,  there  was 
one  conviction  too  deeply  imprinted  upon  his  heart 
ever  to  fade  or  alter, — the  conviction  of  the  ineffable- 
ness  of  God's  grace.  Grace, — man's  absolute  depend- 
ence on  God  as  the  source  of  all  good, — this  was  the 
common  and  even  the  formative  element  in  all  stages 
of  his  doctrinal  development,  which  was  marked  only 
by  the  ever  growing  consistency  with  which  he  built 
his  theology  around  this  central  principle.  Already  in 
397, — the  year  after  he  became  bishop, — we  find  him 
enunciating  with  admirable  clearness  all  the  essential 
elements  of  his  teaching,  as  he  afterwards  opposed 
them  to  Pelagius.1  It  was  inevitable,  therefore,  that 
although  he  was  rejoiced  when  he  heard,  some  years 
later,  of  the  zealous  labours  of  this  pious  monk  in 
Rome  towards  stemming  the  tide  of  luxury  and  sin, 
and  although  he  esteemed  him  for  his  devout  life  and 
loved  him  for  his  Christian  activity,  he  yet  was  deeply 
troubled  when  subsequent  rumours  reached  him  that 
Pelagius  was  "  disputing  against  the  grace  of  God." 

He  tells  us  over  and  over  again,  that  this  was  a  thing 
no  devout  heart  could  endure.     And  we  perceive  that, 

1  Compare  his  work  written  this  year,  On  Several  Questio7is  to 
Simplicianus.  For  the  development  of  Augustine's  theology,  see  the 
admirable  statement  in  Neander's  Church  History,  E.  T.,  ii.  625  sq. 


24    A  UGUSTINE  AND  THE  PELA  GIAN  CONTRO  VERS  Y. 

from  this  moment,  Augustine  was  only  biding  his  time, 
and  awaiting  a  fitting  opportunity  to  join  issue  with 
the  denier  of  the  holy  of  holies  ol  his  whole,  we  need 
not  say  theology  merely,  but  life.  "  Although  1  was 
grieved  by  this,"  he  says,  "  and  it  was  told  me  by  men 
whom  I  believed,  I  yet  desired  to  have  something  of 
such  sort  from  his  own  lips  or  in  some  book  of  his,  so 
that,  if  I  began  to  refute  it,  he  would  not  be  able  to 
deny  it."  '  Thus  he  actually  apologises  for  not  enter- 
ing into  the  controversy  earlier.  When  Pelagius  came 
to  Africa,  then,  it  was  almost  as  if  he  had  deliberately 
sought  his  fate.  Circumstances  secured  a  lull  before 
the  storm.  He  visited  Hippo  ;  but  Augustine  was 
absent,  though  he  did  not  fail  to  inform  himself  on 
his  return  that  Pelagius  while  there  had  not  been  heard 
to  say  "  anything  at  all  of  this  kind."  The  contro- 
versy against  the  Donatists  was  now  occupying  all  the 
energies  of  the  African  Church,  and  Augustine  himself 
was  a  ruling  spirit  in  the  great  conference  now  holding 
at  Carthage  with  them.  While  there,  he  was  so  im- 
mersed in  this  business  that,  although  he  once  or  twice 
saw  the  face  of  Pelagius,  he  had  no  conversation  with 
him.  His  ears  were  wounded  by  a  casual  remark 
which  he  heard,  to  the  effect  "  that  infants  were  not 
baptized  for  remission  of  sins  but  for  consecration  to 
Christ,"  but  he  allowed  himself  to  pass  the  matter 
over,  "  because  there  was  no  opportunity  to  contradict 
it  and  those  who  said  it  were  not  such  men  as  could 
cause  him  solicitude  for  their  influence."2 

Early  Anti-Pelagian  Sermons. 

It  appears  from  these  facts,  given  us  by  himself,  that 
Augustine  was  not  only  ready  but  was  looking  for 
the  coming  controversy.  It  can  scarcely  have  been  a 
surprise  to  him  when  Paulinus  accused  Coelestius  (412). 
He  was  not  a  member  of  the  council  which  condemned 
him,  but  it  was  inevitable  that  he  should  at  once  take 
the    leading    part    in     the     consequent    controversy. 

1  On  the  Proceedings  of  Pelagius,  46. 

*  On  the  Merits  and  Remission  0/  Sins,  iii.  12. 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN    THE    CONTROVERSY.        25 

Ccelestius  and  his  friends  did  not  silently  submit  to  the 
judgment  that  had  been  passed  upon  their  teaching. 
They  could  not  openly  propagate  their  heresy,  but 
they  were  diligent  in  spreading  their  plaints  privately 
and  by  subterraneous  whispers  among  the  people.1 
This  was'  met  by  the  Catholics  in  public  sermons  and 
familiar  colloquies  held  everywhere.  But  this  wise 
rule  was  observed, — to  contend  against  the  erroneous 
teachings  but  to  keep  silence  as  to  the  teachers,  that 
so  (as  Augustine  explains2)  "  the  men  might  rather  be 
brought  to  see  and  acknowledge  their  error  through 
fear  of  ecclesiastical  judgment  than  be  punished  by  the 
actual  judgment."  Augustine  was  abundant  in  these 
oral  labours.  Many  of  his  sermons  directed  against 
Pelagian  error  have  come  down  to  us,  though  it  is 
often  impossible  to  be  sure  as  to  their  dates.  For  one 
of  them  (170)  he  took  his  text  from  Phil.  iii.  6-16,  "  As 
touching  the  righteousness  which  is  by  the  law  blame- 
less ;  howbeit  what  things  were  gain  to  me,  those  have 
I  counted  loss  for  Christ."  He  begins  by  asking  how 
the  apostle  could  count  his  blameless  conversation  ac- 
cording to  the  righteousness  which  is  from  the  law  as 
dung  and  loss,  and  then  proceeds  to  explain  the  pur- 
pose for  which  the  law  was  given,  our  state  by  nature 
and  under  law,  and  the  kind  of  blamelessness  that  the 
law  is  able  to  produce,  ending  by  showing  that  man 
can  have  no  righteousness  except  from  God,  and  no 
perfect  righteousness  except  in  heaven. 

Three  other  sermons  (174,  175,  176)  had  as  their  text 
1  Tim.  i.  15,  16,  and  developed  its  teaching,  that  the 
universal  sin  of  the  world  and  its  helplessness  in  sin 
constituted  the  necessity  of  the  incarnation  ;  and  espe- 
cially that  the  necessity  of  Christ's  grace  for  salvation 
is  just  as  great  tor  infants  as  for  adults.  Much  is  very 
forcibly  said  in  these  sermons  which  was  afterwards 
incorporated  in  Augustine's  treatises.  ' '  There  was 
no  reason,"  he  insists,  "  for  the  coming  of  Christ  the 
Lord  except  to  save  sinners.  Take  away  diseases, 
take  away   wounds,  and  there  is  no  reason  for  medi- 

1  Epistle  157,  22. 

2  On  the  Proceedings  of  Pelagius,  46. 


26    A  UGUSTJNE  AND  THE  PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY. 

cine.  If  the  great  Physician  came  from  heaven,  a 
great  sick  man  was  lying  ill  through  the  whole  world. 
That  sick  man  is  the  human  race"  (175,  1).  "  He  who 
says,  '  I  am  not  a  sinner,'  or  '  I  was  not,'  is  ungrateful 
to  the  Saviour.  No  one  of  men  in  that  mass  of  mor- 
tals which  flows  down  from  Adam,  no  one  at  all  of 
men  is  not  sick  :  no  one  is  healed  without  the  grace  of 
Christ.  Why  do  you  ask  whether  infants  are  sick  from 
Adam  ?  For  they,  too,  are  brought  to  the  church  ; 
and,  if  they  cannot  run  thither  on  their  own  feet,  they 
run  on  the  feet  of  others  that  they  may  be  healed. 
Mother  Church  accommodates  others'  feet  to  them  so 
that  they  may  come,  others'  heart  so  that  they  may 
believe,  others'  tongue  so  that  they  may  confess  ;  and, 
since  they  are  sick  by  another's  sin,  so  when  they  are 
healed  they  are  saved  by  another's  confession  in  their 
behalf.  Let,  then,  no  one  buzz  strange  doctrines  to 
you.  This  the  Church  has  always  had,  has  always 
held  ;  this  she  has  received  from  the  faith  of  the  elders  ; 
this  she  will  perseveringly  guard  until  the  end.  Since 
the  whole  have  no  need  of  a  physician,  but  only  the 
sick,  what  need,  then,  has  the  infant  of  Christ,  if  he  is 
not  sick  ?  If  he  is  well,  why  does  he  seek  the  physi- 
cian through  those  who  love  him  ?  If,  when  infants 
are  brought,  they  are  said  to  have  no  sin  of  inheritance 
(peccatum  propaginis)  at  all,  and  yet  come  to  Christ, 
why  is  it  not  said  in  the  church  to  those  that  bring 
them,  '  Take  these  innocents  hence  ;  the  physician  is 
not  needed  by  the  well,  but  by  the  sick  ;  Christ  came 
not  to  call  the  just,  but  sinners  '  ?  It  never  has  been 
said,  and  it  never  will  be  said.  Let  each  one  therefore, 
brethren,  speak  for  him  who  cannot  speak  for  himself. 
It  is  much  the  custom  to  intrust  the  inheritance  of 
orphans  to  the  bishops  ;  how  much  more  the  grace  of 
infants  !  The  bishop  protects  the  orphan  lest  he  should 
be  oppressed  by  strangers,  his  parents  being  dead. 
Let  him  cry  out  more  for  the  infant  who,  he  fears,  will 
be  slain  by  his  parents.  Who  comes  to  Christ  has 
something  in  him  to  be  healed  ;  and  he  who  has  not, 
has  no  reason  for  seeking  the  physician.  Let  parents 
choose  one  of  two  things  :  let  them  either  confess  that 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN    THE    CONTROVERSY.        27 

there  is  sin  to  be  healed  in  their  infants,  or  let  them 
cease  bringing  them  to  the  physician.  This  is  nothing 
else  than  to  wish  to  bring  a  well  person  to  the  physi- 
cian. Why  do  you  bring  him  ?  To  be  baptized. 
Whom  ?  The  infant.  To  whom  do  you  bring  him  ? 
To  Christ.  To  Him,  of  course,  who  came  into  the 
world  ?  Certainly,  it  is  said.  Why  did  He  come  into 
the  world  ?  To  save  sinners.  Then  he  whom  you 
bring  has  in  him  that  which  needs  saving  ?''  ' 

So  again  :  "  He  who  says  that  the  age  of  infancy  does 
not  need  Jesus'  salvation,  says  nothing  else  than  that  the 
Lord  Christ  is  not  Jesus  to  faithful  infants  ;  i.e.,  to  in- 
fants baptized  in  Christ.  For  what  is  Jesus  ?  Jesus 
means  saviour.  He  is  not  Jesus  to  those  whom  He 
does  not  save,  who  do  not  need  to  be  saved.  Now,  if 
your  hearts  can  bear  that  Christ  is  not  Jesus  to  any  of 
the  baptized,  I  do  not  know  how  you  can  be  acknowl- 
edged to  have  sound  faith.  They  are  infants,  but  they 
are  made  members  of  Him.  They  are  infants,  but  they 
receive  His  sacraments.  They  are  infants,  but  they 
become  partakers  of  His  table,  so  that  they  may  have 
life."  3  The  preveniency  of  grace  is  explicitly  asserted 
in  these  sermons.  In  one  he  says,  "  Zaccheus  was 
seen,  and  saw  ;  but  unless  he  had  been  seen,  he  would 
not  have  seen.  For  '  whom  He  predestinated,  them 
also  He  called.'  In  order  that  we  may  see,  we  are 
seen  ;  that  we  may  love,  we  are  loved.  '  My  God, 
may  His  pity  prevent  me  !  '  "  3  And  in  another,  at 
more  length  :  "  His  calling  has  prevented  you,  so  that 
you  may  have  a  good  will.  Cry  out,  '  My  God,  let 
Thy  mercy  prevent  me  '  (Ps.  lviii.  11).  That  you  may 
be,  that  you  may  feel,  that  you  may  hear,  that  you 
may  consent,  His  mercy  prevents  you.  It  prevents 
you  in  all  things  ;  and  do  you  too  prevent  His  judg- 
ment in  something.  In  what,  do  you  say  ?  In  what  ? 
In  confessing  that  you  have  all  these  things  from  God, 
whatever  you  have  of  good  ;  and  from  yourself  what- 
ever you  have  of  evil"  (176,  5).  "  We  owe  therefore 
to  Him  that  we  are,  that  we  are  alive,  that  we  under- 

1  Sermon  176,  2.  2  Ibid.  174.  3  Ibid.  174. 


28    A  UGUSTINE  AND  THE  PELA GIAN  CONTRO  VERSY. 

stand  :  that  we  are  men,  that  we  live  well,  that  we 
understand  aright,  we  owe  to  Him.  Nothing  is  ours 
except  the  sin  that  we  have.  For  what  have  we  that 
we  did  not  receive?"  (i  Cor.  ix.  7)  (176,  6). 

The  Treatise  on  "  The  Merits  and  Remission  of  Sins." 

It  was  not  long,  however,  before  the  controversy 
was  driven  out  of  the  region  of  sermons  into  that  of 
regular  treatises.  The  occasion  for  Augustine's  first 
appearance  in  a  written  document  bearing  on  the  con- 
troversy, was  given  by  certain  questions  which  were 
sent  to  him  for  answer  by  "  the  tribune  and  notary" 
Marcellinus,  with  whom  he  had  cemented  his  intimacy 
at  Carthage  the  previous  year,  when  this  notable  offi- 
cial was  presiding,  by  the  emperor's  orders,  over  the 
great  conference  between  the  Catholics  and  Donatists.1 
The  mere  fact  that  Marcellinus,  still  at  Carthage  where 
Coelestius  had  been  brought  to  trial,  appealed  to  Au- 
gustine at  Hippo  for  written  answers  to  important 
questions  connected  with  the  Pelagian  heresy,  speaks 
volumes  for  the  prominent  position  he  had  already  as- 
sumed in  the  controversy.  The  questions  that  were 
sent  concerned  the  connection  of  death  with  sin,  the 
transmission  of  sin,  the  possibility  of  a  sinless  life,  and 
especially  infants'  need  of  baptism.2  Augustine  was 
immersed  in  abundant  labours  when  they  reached  him.3 
But  he  could  not  resist  this  appeal,  and  that  the  less 

1  Flavius  Marcellinus  was  a  Christian  man  of  high  character  and 
devout  mind.  Honorius  mentions  him  as  a  "  man  of  conspicuous  re- 
nown," in  a  law  enacted  August  30th,  414  {Cod.  Thcod.  xvi.,  5,  line  55). 
He  was  appointed  by  Honorius  to  preside  over  the  commission  of  in- 
quiry into  the  disputes  between  the  Catholics  and  Donatists  in  411, 
and  held  the  famous  conference  between  the  parties  that  met  in 
Carthage  on  the  1st,  3d,  and  8th  of  June,  411.  He  discharged  this 
whole  business  with  singular  patience,  moderation,  and  good  judg- 
ment ;  which  appears  to  have  cemented  the  intimate  friendship  be- 
tween him  and  Augustine.  Augustine's  treatise  on  The  Spirit  and 
Letter  is  also  addressed  to  him,  and  the  City  of  God  was  undertaken  on 
his  suggestion.  He  was  put  to  death  in  September,  413,  "having, 
though  innocent,  fallen  a  victim  to  the  cruel  hatred  of  the  tyrant 
Heraclius,"  as  Jerome  writes  in  his  book  iii.  against  the  Pelagians. 

8  On  the  Merits  and  Remission  of  Sins,  iii.  1. 

3  Ibid.  i.  1.     Compare  Epistle  139. 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN    THE    CONTROVERSY.        29 

since  the  Pelagian  controversy  had  already  grown  to  a 
place  of  the  first  importance  in  his  eyes.  The  result 
was  his  treatise,  On  the  Merits  and  Remission  of  Sins 
mid  on  the  Baptism  of  Infants,  which  consisted  of  two 
books,  and  was  written  in  412. 

The  first  book  of  this  work  is  an  argument  for  origi- 
nal sin,  drawn  from  the  universal  reign  of  death  in  the 
world  (2-8),  from  the  teaching  of  Rom.  v.  12-21  (9-20), 
and  chiefly  from  the  baptism  of  infants  (2 1-70). '  It 
opens  by  exploding  the  Pelagian  contention  that  death 
is  of  nature  and  that  Adam  would  have  died  even  had 
he  not  sinned,  by  showing  that  the  penalty  threatened 
to  Adam  included  physical  death  (Gen.  iii.  19),  and 
that  it  is  due  to  him  that  we  all  die  (Rom.  viii.  10,  11  ; 
1  Cor.  xv.  21)  (2-8).  Then  the  Pelagian  assertion  that 
we  are  injured  in  Adam's  sin  only  by  its  bad  example, 
which  we  imitate,  not  by  any  propagation  from  it,  is 
tested  by  an  exposition  ot  Rom.  v.  12  sq.  (9-20).  And 
then  the  main  subject  of  the  book  is  reached,  and  the 
writer  sharply  presses  the  Pelagians  with  the  universal 
and  primitive  fact  of  the  baptism  of  infants,  as  a  proof 
of  original  sin  (21-70).  He  tracks  out  all  their  subter- 
fuges,— showing  the  absurdity  of  the  assertion  that  in- 
fants are  baptized  for  the  remission  of  sins  that  they 
have  themselves  committed  since  birth  (22),  or  in  order 
to  obtain  a  higher  stage  of  salvation  (23-28),  or  because 
of  sin  committed  in  some  previous  state  of  existence 
(3 1— 33)-  Then  turning  to  the  positive  side,  he  shows 
at  length  that  the  Scriptures  teach  that  Christ  came  to 
save  sinners,  that  baptism  is  for  the  remission  of  sins, 
and  that  all  that  partake  of  it  are  confessedly  sinners 
(34  sq.)  ;  then  he  points  out  that  John  ii.  7,  8,  on  which 
the  Pelagians  relied,  cannot  be  held  to  distinguish  be- 
tween ordinary  salvation  and  a  higher  form,  under  the 
name  of  "  the  kingdom  of  God"  (58  sq.)  ;  and  he  closes 

1  On  the  prominence  of  infant  baptism  in  the  controversy,  and  why 
it  was  so,  see  Sermon  165,  7  sq.  "  What  do  you  say  ?  '  Just  this,'  he 
says,  '  that  God  creates  every  man  immortal.'  Why,  then,  dc  infant 
children  die  ?  For  if  I  say,  '  Why  do  adult  men  die  ? '  you  would  say 
to  me,  '  They  have  sinned. '  Therefore  I  do  not  argue  about  the 
adults  :  I  cite  infancy  as  a  witness  against  you,"  and  so  on,  eloquent- 
ly developing  the  argument. 


So    A  UGUSTINE  AND  THE  PELA  GIAN  CONTRO  VERS  Y. 

by  showing  that  the  very  manner  in  which  baptism 
was  administered,  with  its  exorcism  and  exsufflation, 
implied  the  infant  to  be  a  sinner  (63),  and  by  suggest- 
ing that  the  peculiar  helplessness  of  infancy,  so  differ- 
ent not  only  from  the  earliest  age  of  Adam,  but  also 
from  that  of  many  young  animals,  may  possibly  be 
itself  penal  (64-69). 

The  second  book  treats,  with  similar  fulness,  the 
question  of  the  perfection  of  human  righteousness  in 
this  life.  After  an  exordium  which  speaks  of  the  will 
and  its  limitations  and  of  the  need  of  God's  assisting 
grace  (1-6),  the  writer  raises  four  questions.  First,  he 
asks  whether  it  may  be  said  to  be  possible  for  a  man, 
by  God's  grace,  to  attain  a  condition  of  entire  sinless- 
ness  in  this  life  (7).  This  he  answers  in  the  affirmative. 
Secondly,  he  asks  whether  any  one  has  ever  done  this, 
or  may  ever  be  expected  to  do  it.  This  he  answers  in 
the  negative  on  the  testimony  of  Scripture  (8-25). 
Thirdly,  he  asks  why  not,  and  replies  briefly  because 
men  are  unwilling,  explaining  at  length  what  he  means 
by  this  (26-33).  Finally,  he  inquires  whether  any  man 
has  ever  existed,  exists  now,  or  will  ever  exist,  entirely 
without  sin.  This  question  differs  from  the  second 
inasmuch  as  that  inquired  after  the  attainment  in  this 
life  of  a  state  in  which  sinning  should  cease,  while  this 
seeks  a  man  who  has  never  been  sinful,  implying 
the  absence  of  original  as  well  as  of  actual  sin.  After 
answering  this  in  the  negative  (34),  Augustine  discusses 
anew  the  question  of  original  sin.  Here  he  first  ex- 
pounds from  the  positive  side  (35-38)  the  condition  of 
man  in  paradise,  the  nature  of  his  probation,  and  of  the 
fall  and  its  effects  both  on  him  and  his  posterity,  and 
the  kind  of  redemption  that  has  been  provided  in  the 
incarnation.  He  then  proceeds  to  reply  to  certain 
cavils  (39  sq.),  such  as,  "  Why  should  children  of  bap- 
tized people  need  baptism  ?" — "  How  can  a  sin  be  re- 
mitted to  the  father  and  held  against  the  child  ?" — "  If 
physical  death  comes  from  Adam,  ought  we  not  to  be 
released  from  it  on  believing  in  Christ?"  He  con- 
cludes with  an  exhortation  to  hold  fast  to  the  exact 
truth,  turning  neither  to  the  right  nor  left,— neither 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN    THE    CONTROVERSY.       31 

saying  that  we  have  no  sin,  nor  surrendering  ourselves 
to  our  sin  (57  sq.). 

After  these  books  were  completed,  Augustine  came 
into  possession  of  Pelagius'  Commentary  on  Paul's  Epis- 
tles, which  was  written  while  he  was  living  in  Rome 
(before  410).  He  found  it  to  contain  some  arguments 
that  he  had  not  treated, — such  arguments,  he  tells  us, 
as  he  had  not  imagined  could  be  propounded  by  any 
one.1  Unwilling  to  re-open  his  finished  treatise,  he 
began  a  long  supplementary  letter  to  Marcellinus, 
which  he  intended  to  serve  as  a  third  and  concluding 
book  to  his  work.  He  was  some  time  in  completing 
this  letter.  He  had  asked  to  have  the  former  two 
books  returned  to  him  ;  and  it  is  a  curious  indication  of 
his  overworked  state,  that  he  forgot  what  he  wanted 
with  them.2  He  visited  Carthage  while  the  letter  was 
in  hand,  and  saw  Marcellinus  personally.  Even  after 
his  return  to  Hippo,  it  dragged  along,  amid  many  dis- 
tractions, slowly  towards  completion.3  Meanwhile,  a 
long  letter  was  written  to  Honoratus,  in  which  a  sec- 
tion on  the  grace  of  the  New  Testament  was  incor- 
porated. At  length  the  promised  supplement  was  com- 
pleted. It  was  professedly  a  criticism  of  Pelagius' 
Commentary,  and  therefore  naturally  mentioned  his 
name.  But  Augustine  even  goes  out  of  his  way  to 
speak  as  highly  of  his  opponent  as  he  can.4  It  is  never- 
theless apparent  that  his  esteem  for  the  strength  of 
Pelagius'  mind  was  not  very  high,  and  that  he  had  even 
less  patience  with  the  moral  quality  that  led  to  Pelagius' 
odd,  oblique  way  of  expressing  his  opinions.  There  is 
even  a  half  sarcasm  in  the  way  he  speaks  of  Pelagius' 
care  and  circumspection,  which  was  certainly  justified 
by  the  event. 

The  letter  opens  by  stating  and  criticising  in  a  very 
acute  and  telling  dialectic,  the  new  arguments  of  Pela- 
gius. These  were  such  as  the  following  :  "  If  Adam's 
sin  injured  even  those  who  do  not  sin,  Christ's  right- 
eousness ought  likewise  to  profit  even  those  who  do 


1  On  the  Merits  and  Remission  of  Sins,  iii.  1. 

2  Letter,  139,  3.  a_3  Letter,  140.  4  See  chaps.  1  and  5. 


32    AUG  US  TINE  A  ND  THE  PEL  A  GIA  N  CON  TR  OVERS  Y. 

not  believe"  (2-4)  ;  "  No  man  can  transmit  what  he 
has  not  ;  and  hence,  if  baptism  cleanses  from  sin,  the 
children  of  baptized  parents  ought  to  be  free  from 
sin  ;"  "  God  remits  one's  own  sins,  and  can  scarcely, 
therefore,  impute  another's  to  us  ;  and  if  the  soul  is 
created,  it  would  certainly  be  unjust  to  impute 
Adam's  alien  sin  to  it"  (5).  The  stress  of  the  letter, 
however,  is  laid  upon  two  contentions  :  1.  That  what- 
ever else  may  be  ambiguous  in  the  Scriptures,  they  are 
perfectly  clear  that  no  man  can  have  eternal  life  except 
in  Christ,  who  came  to  call  sinners  to  repentance  (7)  ; 
and  2.  That  original  sin  in  infants  has  always  been,  in 
the  Church,  one  of  the  fixed  facts,  to  be  used  as  a  basis 
of  argument  in  order  to  reach  the  truth  in  other  mat- 
ters, and  has  never  itself  been  called  in  question  before 
(10-14).  At  this  point,  the  writer  returns  to  the  second 
and  third  of  the  new  arguments  of  Pelagius  mentioned 
above,  and  discusses  them  more  fully  (15-20).  He 
closes  with  a  recapitulation  of  the  three  great  points 
that  had  been  raised  :  viz.,  that  both  death  and  sin  are 
derived  from  Adam's  sin  by  all  his  posterity  ;  that  in- 
fants need  salvation,  and  hence  baptism  ;  and  that  no 
man  ever  attains  in  this  life  such  a  state  of  holiness  that 
he  cannot  truly  pray,  "  Forgive  us  our  trespasses." 

The   Treatise  on  "  The  Spirit  and  the  Letter." 

Augustine  was  now  to  learn  that  one  service  often 
entails  another.  Marcellinus  wrote  to  say  that  he  was 
puzzled  by  what  had  been  said  in  the  second  book  of 
this  work,  as  to  the  possibility  of  man's  attaining  to 
sinlessness  in  this  life,  while  yet  it  was  asserted  that  no 
man  ever  had  attained  or  ever  would  attain,  it.  How, 
he  asked,  can  that  be  said  to  be  possible  which  is, 
and  which  will  remain,  unexampled  ?  In  reply,  Au- 
gustine wrote,  during  this  same  year  (412),  and  sent  to 
his  noble  friend,  another  work,  which  he  calls  On  the 
Spirit  and  the  Letter,  from  the  prominence  which  he 
gives  in  it  to  the  words  of  2  Cor.  iii.  6.1     He  did  not 

1  Sermon  163  treats  the  text  similarly. 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN    THE    CONTROVERSY.        33 

content  himself  with  a  simple,  direct  answer  to  Mar- 
cellinus'  question.  He  goes  at  length  into  a  profound 
disquisition  into  the  roots  of  the  doctrine.  Thus  he 
gives  us,  not  a  mere  explanation  of  a  former  conten- 
tion, but  a  new  treatise  on  a  new  subject,— the  absolute 
necessity  of  the  grace  of  God  for  any  good  living. 

He  begins  by  explaining  to  Marcellinus  that  he  has 
affirmed  the  possibility  while  denying  the  actuality  of 
a  sinless  life,  on  the  ground  that  all  things  are  possible 
to  God, — even  the  passage  of  a  camel  through  the  eye 
of  a  needle,  which  nevertheless  has  never  occurred 
(1,  2).  For,  in  speaking  of  man's  perfection,  we  are 
speaking  really  of  a  work  of  God, — and  one  which  is 
none  the  less  His  work  because  it  is  wrought  through 
the  instrumentality  of  man  and  in  the  use  of  his  free 
will.  The  Scriptures,  indeed,  teach  that  no  man  lives 
without  sin.  But  this  is  only  the  proclamation  of  a 
matter  of  fact  ;  and  although  it  is  thus  contrary  to 
fact  and  Scripture  to  assert  that  men  may  be  found 
that  live  sinlessly,  yet  such  an  assertion  would  not  be 
fatal  heresy.  VVhat  is  unbearable,  is  that  men  should 
assert  it  to  be  possible  for  man,  unaided  by  God,  to 
attain  this  perfection.  This  is  to  speak  against  the 
grace  of  God.  It  is  to  put  in  man's  power  what  is  only 
possible  to  the  almighty  grace  of  God  (3,  4).  No 
doubt,  even  these  men  do  not,  in  so  many  words,  ex- 
clude the  aid  of  grace  in  perfecting  human  life.  They 
affirm  God's  help  ;  but  they  make  it  consist  in  His  gift 
to  man  of  a  perfectly  free  will,  and  in  His  addition  to 
this  of  commandments  and  teachings  which  make 
known  to  him  what  he  is  to  seek  and  what  to  avoid, 
and  so  enable  him  to  direct  his  free  will  to  what  is 
good.  What,  however,  does  such  a  "  grace"  amount 
to  ?  (5).  Man  needs  something  more  than  to  know  the 
right  way.  He  needs  to  love  it,  or  he  will  not  walk  in 
it.  And  all  mere  teaching,  which  can  do  nothing  more 
than  bring  us  knowledge  of  what  we  ought  to  do,  is 
but  the  letter  that  killeth.  What  we  need  is  some  in- 
ward, Spirit-given  aid  to  the  keeping  of  what  by  the 
law  we  know  ought  to  be  kept.  Mere  knowledge 
slays  ;  while  to  lead  a  holy  life  is  the  gift  of  God, — not 


34    A  UG  US  TINE  A  ND  THE  PEL  A  GIA  N  CONTRO  VERS  Y. 

only  because  He  has  given  us  will,  nor  only  because 
He  has  taught  us  the  right  way,  but  because  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  He  sheds  love  abroad  in  the  hearts  of  all 
those  whom  He  has  predestinated  and  will  call  and 
justify  and  glorify  (Rom.  viii.  29,  30). 

To  prove  this,  Augustine  states  to  be  the  object  of 
the  present  treatise  ;  and,  after  investigating  the  mean- 
ing of  2  Cor.  iii.  6  and  showing  that  ' '  the  letter"  there 
means  the  law  as  a  system  of  precepts,  which  reveals 
sin  rather  than  takes  it  away,  points  out  the  way  rather 
than  gives  strength  to  walk  in  it  and  therefore  slays 
the  soul  by  shutting  it  up  under  sin, — while  "  the 
Spirit"  is  God's  Holy  Ghost  who  is  shed  abroad  in  our 
hearts  to  give  us  strength  to  walk  aright,  —he  under- 
takes to  prove  this  position  from  the  teachings  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  at  large.  This  contention,  it 
will  be  seen,  cut  at  the  very  roots  of  Pelagianism.  If 
all  mere  teaching  slays  the  soul,  as  Paul  asserts,  then 
all  that  what  they  called  "  grace"  could,  when  alone, 
do,  was  to  destroy  ;  and  the  upshot  of  "  helping"  man 
by  simply  giving  him  free  will  and  pointing  out  the 
way  to  him,  would  be  the  loss  of  the  whole  race.  Not 
that  the  law  is  sin  :  Augustine  teaches  that  it  is  holy 
and  good  and  God's  instrument  in  salvation.  Not 
that  free  will  is  done  away  :  it  is  by  free  will  that  men 
are  led  into  holiness.  But  the  purpose  of  the  law  (he 
teaches)  is  to  make  men  so  feel  their  lost  estate  as  to 
seek  the  help  by  which  alone  they  may  be  saved  ;  and 
will  is  only  then  liberated  to  do  good  when  grace  has 
made  it  free.  "  What  the  law  of  works  enjoins  by 
menace,  that  the  law  of  faith  secures  by  faith.  What 
the  law  of  works  does  is  to  say,  '  Do  what  I  command 
thee  ;  '  but  by  the  law  of  faith  we  say  to  God,  '  Give 
me  what  thou  commandest.'  "  (22V 

In  the  midst  of  this  argument,  Augustine  is  led  to  dis- 
cuss the  differentiating  characteristics  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments.  He  expounds  at  length  (33-42)  the 
passage    in   Jer.    xxxi.    31-34,    showing    that,    in    the 

1  See  this  prayer  beautifully  illustrated  from  Scripture  in  On  the 
Merits  and  Remission  of  Sins,  ii.  5. 


AUGUSTINE' S  PART  IN    THE    CONTROVERSY.        35 

prophet's  view,  the  difference  between  the  two  cove- 
nants is  that  in  the  Old,  the  law  is  an  external  thing 
written  on  stones  ;  while  in  the  New,  it  is  written  in- 
ternally on  the  heart,  so  that  men  now  wish  to  do  what 
the  law  prescribes.  This  writing  on  the  heart  is  noth- 
ing else,  he  explains,  than  the  shedding  abroad  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  of  love  in  our  hearts,  so  that  we  love  God's 
will,  and  therefore  freely  do  it.  Towards  the  end  of 
the  treatise  (50-61),  he  treats  in  an  absorbingly  interest- 
ing way  of  the  mutual  relations  of  free  will,  faith,  and 
grace,  contending  that  all  co-exist  without  the  voiding 
of  any.  It  is  by  free  will  that  we  believe  ;  but  it  is 
only  as  grace  moves  us,  that  we  are  able  to  use  our 
free  will  for  believing  ;  and  it  is  only  after  we  are  thus 
led  by  grace  to  believe,  that  we  obtain  all  other  goods. 
In  prosecuting  this  analysis,  Augustine  is  led  to  distin- 
guish very  sharply  between  the  faculty  and  use  of  ree 
will  (58),  as  well  as  between  ability  and  volition  (53). 
Faith  is  an  act  of  the  man  himself  ;  but  only  as  he  is 
given  the  power  from  on  high  to  will  to  believe,  will 
he  believe  (57,  60). 

By  this  work,  Augustine  completed,  in  his  treatment 
of  Pelagianism,  the  circle  of  that  triad  of  doctrines 
which  he  himself  looked  upon  as  most  endangered  by 
this  heresy,1-  original  sin,  the  imperfection  of  human 
righteousness,  the  necessity  of  grace.  In  his  mind, 
the  last  was  the  kernel  of  the  whole  controversy  ;  and 
this  was  a  subject  which  he  could  never  approach  with- 
out some  heightened  fervour.  This  accounts  for  the 
great  attractiveness  of  the  present  work, — through  the 
whole  fabric  of  which  runs  the  golden  thread  of  the 
praise  of  God's  ineffable  grace.  In  Canon  Bright's 
opinion,  it  "  perhaps,  next  to  the  Confessions,  tells  us 
most  of  the  thoughts  of  that  '  rich,  profound,  and  affec- 
tionate mind  '  on  the  soul's  relations  to  its  God."  * 

1  See  above,  p.  7.  5  As  quoted  above,  p.  18. 


36     AUGUSTINE  AND    THE   PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY. 


The  Letters  to  A  nastasins  and  Paulinus. 

After  the  publication  of  these  treatises,  the  con- 
troversy certainly  did  not  lull.  But  it  relapsed  for 
nearly  three  years,  again,  into  less  public  courses. 
Meanwhile,  Augustine  was  busy,  among  other  most 
distracting  cares  (Ep.  145,  1),  still  defending  the  grace 
of  God  by  letters  and  sermons.  A  fair  illustration  of 
his  state  of  mind  at  this  time  may  be  obtained  fiom 
his  letter  to  Anastasius  (145),  which  assuredly  must 
have  been  written  soon  after  the  treatise  On  the  Spirit 
and  the  Letter.  Throughout  this  letter,  there  are 
adumbrations  of  the  same  train  of  thought  that  filled 
that  treatise  ;  and  there  is  one  passage  which  may 
almost  be  taken  as  a  summary  of  it.  Augustine  is  weary 
of  the  vexatious  cares  that  oppressed  his  life.  He  is 
ready  to  long  for  the  everlasting  rest.  Yet  he  bewails 
the  weakness  which  allowed  the  sweetness  of  external 
things  still  to  insinuate  itself  into  his  heait.  Victory 
over,  and  emancipation  from,  this,  he  asserts,  "  can- 
not, without  God's  grace,  be  achieved  by  the  human 
will,  which  is  by  no  means  to  be  called  free  so  long  as 
it  is  subject  to  enslaving  lusts."  Then  he  proceeds  as 
follows  :  "  The  law,  therefore,  by  teaching  and  com- 
manding what  cannot  be  fulfilled  without  grace,  dem- 
onstrates to  man  his  weakness,  in  order  that  the  weak- 
ness, thus  proved,  may  resort  to  the  Saviour,  by  whose 
healing  the  will  may  be  able  to  do  what  it  found  im- 
possible in  its  weakness.  So,  then,  the  law  brings  us 
to  faith,  faith  obtains  the  Spirit  in  fuller  measure,  the 
Spirit  sheds  love  abroad  in  us,  and  love  fulfils  the 
law.  For  this  reason  the  law  is  called  a  schoolmaster, 
under  whose  threatening  and  severity  '  whosoever  shall 
call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  delivered.'  But 
'  how  shall  they  call  on  Him  in  whom  they  have  not 
believed  ?  '  Wherefore,  that  the  letter  without  the 
Spirit  may  not  kill,  the  life-giving  Spirit  is  given  to 
those  that  believe  and  call  upon  Him  ;  but  the  love  of 
God  is  poured  out  into  our  hearts  by  the  Holy  Spirit 
who  is  given  to  us,   so  that  the   words  of  the  same 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN    THE    CONTROVERSY.        37 

apostle,  '  Love  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law,'  may  be  re- 
alized. Thus  the  law  is  good  to  him  that  uses  it  law- 
fully ;  and  he  uses  it  lawfully,  who,  understanding 
wherefore  it  was  given,  betakes  himself,  under  the 
pressure  of  its  threatening,  to  liberating  grace.  Who- 
ever ungratefully  despises  this  grace  by  which  the  un- 
godly is  justified,  and  trusts  in  his  own  strength  for 
fulfilling  the  law,  being  ignorant  of  God's  righteous- 
ness and  going  about  to  establish  his  own  righteous- 
ness, is  not  submitting  himself  to  the  righteousness  of 
God  ;  and  therefore  the  law  is  made  to  him  not  a  help 
to  pardon,  but  the  bond  of  guilt  ;  not  because  the  law 
is  evil,  but  because  '  sin,'  as  it  is  written,  '  works  death 
to  such  persons  by  that  which  is  good.'  For  by  the 
commandment  he  sins  more  grievously,  who,  by  the 
commandment,  knows  how  evil  are  the  sins  which  he 
commits." 

Although  Augustine  states  clearly  that  this  letter  is 
written  against  those  "  who  arrogate  too  much  to  the 
human  will,  imagining  that,  the  law  being  given,  the 
will  is  of  its  own  strength  sufficient  to  fulfil  the  law, 
though  not  assisted  by  any  grace  imparted  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  in  addition  to  instruction  in  the  law," — he  re- 
frains still  from  mentioning  the  names  ot  the  authors 
of  this  teaching,  evidently  out  of  a  lingering  tender- 
ness in  his  treatment  of  them.  This  will  help  us  to  ex- 
plain the  courtesy  of  a  note  which  he  sent  to  Pelagius 
himself  at  about  this  time,  in  reply  to  a  letter  he  had 
received  from  him  some  time  before,  and  of  which 
Pelagius  afterward  (at  the  Synod  of  Diospolis)  made, 
to  say  the  least  of  it,  an  ungenerous  use.  This  note,'' 
Augustine  tells  us,  was  written  with  ' '  tempered 
praises"  (wherefrom  we  see  his  lessening  respect  for 
the  man),  and  in  such  a  manner  as  to  admonish  Pela- 
gius to  think  rightly  concerning  grace, — so  far  as  could 
be  done  without  raising  the  dregs  of  the  controversy 
in  a  formal  note.  He  sought  to  accomplish  this  by 
praying  from  the  Lord  for  Pelagius,  those  good  things 
by  which  he  might  be  good  forever,  and  might  live 

1  Epistle  146.     See  On  the  Proceedings  of  Pelagius,  50,  51,  52. 


38    AUGUSTINE   AND    THE  PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY. 

eternally  with  Him  who  is  eternal  ;  and  by  asking  his 
prayers  in  return,  that  he,  Augustine,  too,  might  be 
made  by  the  Lord  such  as  Pelagius  seemed  to  suppose 
he  already  was.  How  Augustine  could  really  intend 
these  prayers  to  be  understood  as  an  admonition  to 
Pelagius  to  look  to  God  for  what  he  was  seeking  to 
work  out  lor  himself,  is  fully  illustrated  by  the  closing 
words  of  this  almost  contemporary  letter  to  Anastasius. 
"  Pray,  therefore,  for  us,"  he  writes,  "  that  we  may 
be  righteous, — an  attainment  wholly  beyond  a  man's 
reach,  unless  he  know  righteousness  and  be  willing  to 
practise  it.  but  one  which  is  immediately  realized  when 
he  is  perfectly  willing  ;  but  this  cannot  be  in  him  un- 
less he  is  healed  by  the  grace  of  the  Spirit,  and  aided 
to  be  able."  The  point  had  already  been  made  in  the 
controversy  that  so  much  power  was  attributed  to 
the  human  will  by  the  Pelagian  doctrine  that  no  one 
ought  to  pray,  "  Lead  us  not  into  temptation,  but  de- 
liver us  from  evil." 

If  he  was  anxious  to  avoid  personal  controversy  with 
Pelagius  himself  in  the  hope  that  he  might  even  yet  be 
reclaimed,  Augustine  was  equally  anxious  to  teach  the 
truth  on  all  possible  occasions.  Pelagius  had  been 
intimate,  when  at  Rome,  with  the  pious  Paulinus, 
bishop  of  Nola  ;  and  it  was  understood  that  there  was 
some  tendency  at  Nola  to  follow  the  new  teachings. 
It  was,  perhaps,  as  late  as  414,  when  Augustine  made 
reply  in  a  long  letter,1  to  a  request  which  Paulinus  had 
sent  him  about  4102  for  an  exposition  of  certain  difficult 
passages  of  Scripture.  Among  these  passages  was 
Rom.  xi.  28  ;  and,  in  explaining  it,  Augustine  did  not 
withhold  a  tolerably  complete  account  of  his  doctrine 
of  predestination,  involving  the  essence  of  his  whole 
teaching  as  to  grace.  "  For  when  he  had  said,"  he  re- 
marks, 'according  to  the  election  they  are  beloved 
for  their  father's  sake,'  he  added,  '  for  the  gifts  and 
calling  of  God  are  without  repentance.'  You  sec  that 
those  are  certainly  meant  who  belong  to  the  number 
of  the  predestinated.   ...     '  Many  indeed  are   called 

1  Epistle  149.     See  especially  18  sq.  2  Ibid.  121. 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN    THE    CONTROVERSY.       39 

but  few  chosen  ;  '  but  those  who  are  elect,  these  are 
'  called  according  to  His  purpose  ;  '  and  it  is  beyond 
doubt  that  in  them  God's  foreknowledge  cannot  be  de- 
ceived. These  He  foreknew  and  predestinated  to  be 
conformed  to  the  image  of  His  Son,  in  order  that  He 
might  be  the  first  born  among  many  brethren.  But 
'  whom  He  predestinated,  them  He  also  called.'  This 
calling  is  'according  to  His  purpose,'  this  calling  is 
'  without  repentance,'  "  etc.,  quoting  Rom.  v.  28-31. 
Then  continuing,  he  says  :  "  Those  are  not  in  this  voca- 
tion who  do  not  persevere  unto  the  end  in  the  faith 
that  worketh  by  love,  although  they  walk  in  it  a  little 
while.  .  .  .  But  the  reason  why  some  belong  to  it 
and  some  do  not,  can  easily  be  hidden,  but  cannot  be 
unjust.  For  is  there  injustice  with  God  ?  God  forbid  ! 
For  this  belongs  to  those  high  judgments  which,  so  to 
say,  terrified  the  wondering  apostle  to  look  upon." 

Controversial  Sermons. 

Among  the  most  remarkable  of  the  controversial 
sermons  that  were  preached  about  this  time,  especial 
mention  is  due  to  two  that  were  delivered  at  Carthage 
in  the  midsummer  of  413.  The  former  of  these1  was 
preached  on  the  festival  of  John  the  Baptist's  birth 
(June  24),  and  naturally  took  the  forerunner  for  its  sub- 
ject. The  nativity  of  John  suggesting  the  nativity  of 
Christ,  the  preacher  spoke  of  the  marvel  of  the  incar- 
nation. He  who  was  in  the  beginning,  and  was  the 
Word  of  God,  and  was  Himself  God,  and  who  made 
all  things,  and  in  whom  was  life,  even  this  one  "  came 
to  us.  To  whom  ?  To  the  worthy  ?  Nay,  but  to  the 
unworthy  !  For  Christ  died  for  the  ungodly  and  the 
unworthy,  though  He  was  worthy.  We  indeed  were 
unworthy  whom  He  pitied  ;  but  He  was  worthy  who 
pitied  us,  to  whom  we  say,  '  For  Thy  pity's  sake, 
Lord,  deliver  us  !  '  Not  for  the  sake  of  our  preceding 
merits,  but  '  for  Thy  pity's  sake,  Lord,  deliver  us  ;' 
and  'for  Thy  name's  sake  be  propitious  to  our  sins,' 
not  for  our  merit's  sake.   .   .   .     For  the  merit  of  sins  is, 

1  Sermon  293. 


40    AUGUSTINE  AND    THE   PELAGIAN   CONTROVERSY. 

of  course,  not  reward,  but  punishment. ' '  The  preacher 
then  dwelt  upon  the  necessity  of  the  incarnation,  and 
the  necessity  of  a  mediator  between  God  and  "  the 
whole  mass  of  the  human  race  alienated  from  Him  by 
Adam."  Then,  quoting  i  Cor.  iv.  7,  he  asserts  that  it 
is  not  our  varying  merits  but  God's  grace  alone  that 
makes  us  differ,  and  that  we  are  all  alike,  great  and 
small,  old  and  young,  saved  by  one  and  the  same 
Saviour.  "  '  What  then,'  some  one  says,"  he  con- 
tinues, "  '  even  the  infant  needs  a  liberator  ? '  Cer- 
tainly he  needs  one.  And  the  witness  to  it  is  the 
mother  that  faithfully  runs  to  church  with  the  child  to 
be  baptized.  The  witness  is  Mother  Church  herself, 
who  receives  the  child  for  washing,  and  either  for  dis- 
missing him  [from  this  life]  delivered,  or  nurturing  him 
in  piety.  .  .  .  Last  of  all,  the  tears  of  his  own  misery 
are  witness  in  the  child  himself.  .  .  .  Recognize  the 
misery,  extend  the  help.  Let  all  put  on  bowels  of  mer- 
cy. By  as  much  as  they  cannot  speak  for  themselves, 
by  so  much  more  pityingly  let  us  speak  for  the  little 
ones."  Then  follows  a  passage  calling  on  the  Church 
to  take  the  grace  of  infants  in  their  charge  as  orphans 
committed  to  their  care,  which  is  in  substance  repeated 
from  a  former  sermon.1  The  speaker  proceeded  to 
quote  Matt.  i.  21,  and  apply  it.  If  Jesus  came  to  save 
from  sins,  and  infants  are  brought  to  Him,  it  is  to  con- 
fess that  they,  too,  are  sinners.  Then,  shall  they  be 
withheld  from  baptism  ?  ' '  Certainly,  if  the  child  could 
speak  for  himself,  he  would  repel  the  voice  of  opposi- 
tion, and  cry  out,  '  Give  me  Christ's  life  !  In  Adam  I 
died  :  give  me  Christ's  life  ;  in  whose  sight  1  am  not 
clean,  even  if  I  am  an  infant  whose  life  has  been  but 
one  day  in  the  earth.'  "  "No  way  can  be  found," 
adds  the  preacher,  "  of  coming  into  the  life  of  this 
world  except  by  Adam  ;  no  way  can  be  found  of  escap- 
ing punishment  in  the  next  world  except  by  Christ. 
Why  do  you  shut  up  the  one  door  ?"  Even  John  the 
Baptist  himself  was  born  in  sin  ;  and  absolutely  no  one 
can  be  found  who  was  born  apart  from  sin,  unless  we 

1  Sermon  176,  2. 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN    THE    CONTROVERSY.       \\ 

can  find  one  who  has  been  born  apart  from  Adam. 
"  '  By  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  by  sin, 
death  ;  and  so  it  passed  through  upon  all  men.'  If 
these  were  my  words,  could  this  sentiment  be  ex- 
pressed more  expressly,  more  clearly,  more  fully  ?" 

Three  days  afterwards,1  on  the  invitation  of  the 
Bishop  of  Carthage,  Augustine  preached  a  sermon  pro- 
fessedly directed  against  the  Pelagians,2  which  took  up 
the  threads  hinted  at  in  the  former  discourse,  and  de- 
veloped a  full  polemic  with  reference  to  the  baptism 
of  infants.  He  began,  formally  enough,  with  the  de- 
termination of  the  question  in  dispute.  The  Pelagians 
concede  that  infants  should  be  baptized.  The  only 
question  is,  For  what  are  they  baptized  ?  We  say  that 
they  would  not  otherwise  have  salvation  and  eternal 
life  ;  but  they  say  it  is  not  for  salvation,  not  for  eternal 
life,  but  for  the  kingdom  of  God.  "  The  child,  they 
say,  although  not  baptized,  by  the  desert  of  his  inno- 
cence, in  that  he  has  no  sin  at  all,  either  actual  or  orig- 
inal, either  from  himself  or  contracted  from  Adam, 
necessarily  has  salvation  and  eternal  life  even  if  not 
baptized  ;  but  is  to  be  baptized  for  this  reason,— that 
he  may  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  i.e.,  into  the 
kingdom  of  heaven."  He  then  showed  that  there  is 
no  eternal  life  outside  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  no  mid- 
dle place  between  the  right  and  left  hand  of  the  judge 
at  the  last  day,  and  that,  therefore,  to  exclude  one 
from  the  kingdom  of  God  is  to  consign  him  to  the 
pains  of  eternal  fire  ;  while,  on  the  other  side,  no  one 
ascends  into  heaven  unless  he  has  been  made  a  mem- 
ber of  Christ,  and  this  can  only  be  by  faith, — which, 
in  an  infant's  case,  is  professed  by  another  in  his  stead. 
He  next  treated,  at  length,  some  of  the  puzzling  ques- 
tions with  which  the  Pelagians  were  wont  to  try  the 
catholics  ;  and  then,  breaking  off  suddenly,  he  took  a 

1  The  inscription  says,  "  V  Calendas  Julii,"  i.e.,  June  27.  But  it 
also  says,  "  In  natalis  martyr  is  Gttddenfzs,"  whose  day  appears  to 
have  been  July  18.  Some  of  the  martyrologies  assign  the  28th  of 
June  to  Gaudentius  (which  some  copies  read  here),  but  possibly  none 
to  Guddene. 

5  Sermon  294. 


42    AUGUSTINE   AND    THE  PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY. 

volume  in  his  hands.  "  I  ask  you,"  he  said,  "  to  bear 
with  me  a  little  :  I  will  read  somewhat.  It  is  St. 
Cyprian  whom  I  hold  in  my  hand,  the  ancient  bishop 
of  this  see.  What  he  thought  of  the  baptism  of  infants, 
— nay,  what  he  has  shown  that  the  Church  always 
thought, — learn  in  brief.  For  it  is  not  enough  for 
them  to  dispute  and  argue  I  know  not  what  impious 
novelties  :  they  even  try  to  charge  us  with  asserting 
novelties.  It  is  on  this  account  that  I  read  here  St. 
Cyprian,  in  order  that  you  may  perceive  that  the  or- 
thodox understanding  and  catholic  sense  reside  in  the 
words  which  I  have  been  just  now  speaking  to  you. 
He  was  asked  whether  an  infant  ought  to  be  baptized 
before  he  was  eight  days  old,  seeing  that  by  the  an- 
cient law  no  infant  was  allowed  to  be  circumcised  until 
he  was  eight  days  old.  A  question  arose  from  this  as 
to  the  day  of  baptism, — for  concerning  the  origin  of 
sin  there  was  no  question  ;  and  therefore  from  this 
thing  of  which  there  was  no  question,  that  question 
that  had  arisen  was  settled."  Whereupon  he  read  to 
them  the  passage  out  of  Cyprian's  letter  to  Fidus, 
which  declares  that  he,  and  all  the  council  with  him, 
unanimously  thought  that  infants  should  be  baptized  at 
the  earliest  possible  age,  lest  they  should  die  in  their 
inherited  sin  and  so  pass  into  eternal  punishment.1  The 
sermon  closed  with  a  tender  warning  to  the  teachers 
of  these  strange  doctrines.  He  might  call  them  her- 
etics with  truth,  but  he  will  not  ;  let  the  Church  seek 
still  their  salvation,  and  not  mourn  them  as  dead  ;  let 
them  be  exhorted  as  friends,  not  striven  with  as  ene- 
mies. "  They  disparage  us,"  he  says,  "  we  will  bear 
it  ;  let  them  not  disparage  the  rule  [of  faith],  let  them 
not  disparage  the  truth  ;  let  them  not  contradict  the 
Church,  which  labours  every  day  for  the  remission  of 
infants'  original  sin.  This  thing  is  settled.  The  errant 
disputer  may  be  borne  with  in  other  questions  that 
have  not  been  thoroughly  canvassed,  that  are  not  yet 
settled    by   the   full   authority  of   the    Church, — their 

1  The  passage  is  quoted  at  length  in  On  the  Merits  and  Remission 
of  Sins,  iii.  10.  Compare  Against  Two  Letters  of  the  Pelagians 
iv.  23. 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN  THE    CONTROVERSY.        43 

error  should  be  borne  with  :  it  ought  not  to  extend  so 
far  that  they  endeavour  to  shake  even  the  very  founda- 
tions of  the  Church  !"  He  hints  that  although  the 
patience  hitherto  exhibited  towards  them  is  ' '  perhaps 
not  blameworthy,"  yet  patience  may  cease  to  be  a 
virtue,  and  become  culpable  negligence.  In  the  mean 
time,  however,  he  begs  that  the  catholics  should  con- 
tinue amicable,  fraternal,  placid,  loving,  long  suffering. 

Letter  to  Hilary  of  Sicily. 

Augustine  himself  gives  us  a  view  of  the  progress  of 
the  controversy  at  this  time,  in  a  letter  written  in  414.1 
The  Pelagians  had  everywhere  scattered  the  seeds  of 
their  new  error.  Some  of  them,  by  his  ministry  and 
that  of  his  brother  workers,  had,  "  by  God's  mercy," 
been  cured  of  their  pest.  Yet  they  still  existed  in 
Africa,  especially  about  Carthage,  and  were  every- 
where propagating  their  opinions  in  subterraneous 
whispers,  lor  fear  of  the  judgment  of  the  Church. 
Wherever  they  were  not  refuted  they  were  seducing 
others  to  their  following  ;  and  they  were  so  spread 
abroad  that  he  did  not  know  where  they  would  break 
out  next.  Nevertheless,  he  was  still  unwilling  to 
brand  them  as  heretics,  and  was  more  desirous  of  heal- 
ing them  as  sick  members  of  the  Church  than  of  cutting 
them  off  finally  as  too  diseased  for  cure.  Jerome  also 
tells  us  that  the  poison  was  spreading  in  both  the  East 
and  the  West,  and  mentions  particularly  as  seats  where 
it  showed  itself  the  islands  of  Rhodes  and  Sicily.  Of 
Rhodes  we  know  nothing  further  ;  but  from  Sicily  an 
appeal  came  to  Augustine  in  414  from  one  Hilary,2  set- 
ting forth  that  there  were  certain  Christians  about 
Syracuse  who  taught  strange  doctrines,  and  beseech- 
ing Augustine  to  help  him  in  dealing  with  them.  The 
doctrines  were  enumerated  as  follows  :  ' '  They  say 
(1)  that  man  can  be  without  sin,  (2)  and  can  easily  keep 
the  commandments  of  God  if  he  will  ;  (3)  that  an  un- 
baptized  infant,  if  he  is  cut  off  by  death,  cannot  justly 

1  Epistle  157,  22.  2  Epistle  156  among  Augustine's  Letters. 


44    AUGUSTINE   AND    THE  PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY. 

perish,  since  he  is  born  without  sin  ;  (4)  that  a  rich 
man  that  remains  in  his  riches  cannot  enter  the  king- 
dom of  God,  except  he  sell  all  that  he  has  ;  .  .  .  (5)  that 
we  ought  not  to  swear  at  all  ;"  and  (6)  apparently, 
that  the  Church  is  to  be  in  this  world  without  spot  or 
blemish.  Augustine  suspected  that  these  Sicilian  dis- 
turbances were  in  some  way  the  work  of  Ccelestius, 
and  therefore  in  his  answer1  informs  his  correspondent 
of  what  had  been  done  at  the  Synod  of  Carthage  (412) 
against  that  heretic. 

The  long  letter  that  was  thus  called  forth  follows  the 
inquiries  in  the  order  they  were  put  by  Hilary.  To 
the  first  of  these  Augustine  replies  substantially  as  he 
had  treated  the  same  matter  in  the  second  book  of  the 
treatise,  On  the  Merits  and  Forgiveness  of  Sins, — that  it 
is  opposed  to  Scripture  to  hold  that  man  can  live  sin- 
lessly  in  this  life,  but  that  it  is  less  a  heresy  than  the 
wholly  unbearable  opinion  that  this  state  of  sinlessness 
can  be  attained  without  God's  help.  "  But  when  they 
say  that  free  will  suffices  to  man  for  fulfilling  the  pre- 
cepts of  the  Lord,  even  though  unaided  to  good  works 
by  God's  grace  and  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  is  to 
be  altogether  anathematized  and  detested  with  all  exe- 
cration. For  those  who  assert  this  are  inwardly  alien 
from  God's  grace,  because  being  ignorant  of  God's 
righteousness,  like  the  Jews  of  whom  the  apostle  speaks, 
and  wishing  to  establish  their  own,  they  are  not  sub- 
ject to  God's  righteousness,  since  there  is  no  fulfilment 
of  the  law  except  love  ;  and  of  course  the  love  of  God 
is  shed  abroad  in  our  hearts,  not  by  ourselves,  nor  by 
the  force  of  our  own  will,  but  by  the  Holy  Ghost  who 
is  given  to  us."  Dealing  next  with  the  second  point, 
he  drifts  into  the  matter  he  had  more  fully  developed 
in  his  work  On  the  Spirit  a?id  the  Letter.  "  Free  will 
avails  for  God's  works,"  he  says,  "if  it  be  divinely 
aided,  and  this  comes  by  humble  seeking  and  doing  ; 
but  when  deserted  by  divine  aid,  no  matter  how  excel- 
lent may  be  its  knowledge  of  the  law,  it  will  by  no 
means  possess  solidity  of  righteousness,  but  only  the 

1  Epistle  157,  22. 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN  THE    CONTROVERSY.        45 

inflation  of  ungodly  pride  and  deadly  arrogance.  This 
is  taught  us  by  that  same  Lord's  Prayer  ;  for  it  would 
be  an  empty  thing  for  us  to  ask  God  '  Lead  us  not  into 
temptation,'  if  the  matter  was  so  placed  in  our  power 
that  we  would  avail  for  fulfilling  it  without  any  aid 
from  Him.  For  this  free  will  is  free  in  proportion  as 
it  is  sound,  but  it  is  sound  in  proportion  as  it  is  subject 
to  divine  pity  and  grace.  For  it  faithfully  prays,  say- 
ing, '  Direct  my  ways  according  to  Thy  word,  and  let 
no  iniquity  reign  over  me.'  For  how  is  that  free  over 
which  iniquity  reigns  ?  But  see  who  it  is  that  is  in- 
voked by  it,  in  order  that  it  may  not  reign  over  it. 
For  it  says  not,  '  Direct  my  ways  according  to  free  will 
because  no  iniquity  shall  rule  over  me,'  but  '  Direct 
my  ways  according  to  Thy  zuord,  and  let  no  iniquity  rule 
over  me.'  It  is  a  prayer,  not  a  promise  ;  it  is  a  confes- 
sion, not  a  profession  ;  it  is  a  wish  for  full  freedom,  not 
a  boast  of  personal  power.  For  it  is  not  '  every  one 
who  confides  in  his  own  power,'  but  '  every  one  who 
calls  on  the  name  of  God,'  that '  shall  be  saved.'  'But 
how  shall  they  call  upon  Him,'  he  says,  '  in  whom  they 
have  not  believed  ? '  Accordingly,  then,  they  who 
rightly  believe,  believe  in  order  to  call  on  Him  in 
whom  they  have  believed,  and  to  avail  for  doing  what 
they  receive  in  the  precepts  of  the  law  ;  since  what  the 
law  commands,  faith  prays  for."  "  God,  therefore, 
commands  continence,  and  gives  continence  ;  He  com- 
mands by  the  law,  He  give  by  grace  ;  He  commands 
by  the  letter,  He  gives  by  the  spirit  :  for  the  law  with- 
out grace  makes  the  transgression  to  abound,  and  the 
letter  without  the  Spirit  kills.  He  commands  for  this 
reason, — that  we  who  have  endeavoured  to  do  what 
He  commands  and  are  worn  out  in  our  weakness  under 
the  law,  may  know  how  to  ask  for  the  aid  of  grace  ; 
and,  if  we  have  been  able  to  do  any  good  work,  that 
we  may  not  be  ungrateful  to  Him  who  aids  us."  The 
answer  to  the  third  point  traverses  the  ground  that 
was  fully  covered  in  the  first  book  of  the  treatise  On 
the  Merits  and  Forgiveness  of  Sins,  beginning  by  oppos- 
ing the  Pelagians  to  Paul  in  Rom.  v.  12-19  :  "  But 
when  they  say  that  an  infant,  cut  off  by  death  unbap- 


46    AUGUSTINE  AND    THE  PELAGIAN    CONTROVERSY. 

tized,  cannot  perish  since  he  is  born  without  sin, — it  is 
not  this  that  the  apostle  says  ;  and  I  think  that  it  is 
better  to  believe  the  apostle  than  them."  The  fourth 
and  fifth  questions  were  new  in  this  controversy  ;  and 
it  is  not  certain  that  they  belong  properly  to  it,  though 
the  legalistic  asceticism  of  the  Pelagian  leaders  may 
well  have  given  rise  to  a  demand  on  all  Christians  to 
sell  what  they  had  and  give  to  the  poor.  This  one  of 
the  points,  Augustine  treats  at  length,  pointing  out 
that  many  of  the  saints  of  old  were  rich,  and  that  the 
Lord  and  His  apostles  always  so  speak  that  their  coun- 
sels avail  to  the  right  use,  not  the  destruction  of  wealth. 
Christians  ought  so  to  hold  their  wealth  that  they  are 
not  held  by  it  and  by  no  means  prefer  it  to  Christ. 
Equal  good  sense  and  mildness  are  shown  in  his  treat- 
ment of  the  question  concerning  oaths  ;  he  points  out 
that  they  were  used  by  the  Lord  and  His  apostles,  but 
advises  that  they  be  used  as  little  as  possible,  lest  by 
the  custom  of  frequent  oaths  we  learn  to  swear  lightly. 
The  question  as  to  the  Church,  he  passes  over  as  hav- 
ing been  sufficiently  treated  in  the  course  of  his  previ- 
ous remarks. 

The   Treatise  on  ' '  Nature  and  Grace. ' ' 

To  the  number  of  those  who  had  been  rescued  from 
Pelagianism  by  his  efforts,  Augustine  was  now  to  have 
the  pleasure  of  adding  two  others,  in  whom  he  seems 
to  have  taken  much  delight.  Timasius  and  James 
were  two  young  men  of  honourable  birth  and  liberal 
education,  who  had  been  moved  by  the  exhortations  of 
Pelagius  to  give  up  the  hope  that  they  had  in  this 
world  and  to  enter  upon  the  service  of  God  in  an  as- 
cetic life.1  Naturally,  they  had  turned  to  him  for  in- 
struction, and  had  received  from  him  a  book  to  which 
they  had  given  their  study.  They  met  somewhere 
with  some  of  Augustine's  writings,  however,  and  were 
deeply  affected  by  what  he  said  as  to  grace,  and  now 
began  to  see  that  the  teaching  of  Pelagius  opposed  the 
grace   of    God    by   which   man    becomes  a  Christian. 

1  Epistles  177,  6  ;  and  179,  2. 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN    THE    CONTROVERSY.       47 

They  gave  their  book,  therefore,  to  Augustine,  saying 
that  it  was  Pelagius',  and  asking  him  for  Pelagius' 
sake,  and  for  the  sake  of  the  truth,  to  answer  it.  This 
was  done  ;  the  resulting  book,  On  Nature  and  Grace, 
was  sent  to  the  young  men  ;  and  they  returned  a  letter 
of  thanks1  in  which  they  professed  their  conversion 
from  their  error.  In  this  book,  too,  which  was  written 
in  415,  Augustine  refrained  from  mentioning  Pelagius 
by  name,3  still  feeling  it  better  to  spare  the  man  while 
not  sparing  his  errors.  But  he  tells  us,  that,  on  read- 
ing the  book  of  Pelagius'  to  which  it  was  an  answer,  it 
became  clear  to  him  beyond  any  doubt  that  Pelagius' 
teaching  was  distinctly  anti-Christian  ;3  and  when 
speaking  of  his  own  book  privately  to  a  friend,  he 
allows  himself  to  call  it  "  a  considerable  book  against 
the  heresy  of  Pelagius,  which  he  had  been  constrained 
to  write  by  some  brethren  whom  Pelagius  had  per- 
suaded to  adopt  his  fatal  error,  denying  the  grace  of 
Christ."4  Thus  his  attitude  towards  the  persons  of 
the  new  teachers  was  becoming  ever  more  and  more 
strained,  despite  his  recognition  of  the  excellent  mo- 
tives that  might  lie  behind  their  ' '  zeal  not  according 
to  knowledge." 

The  treatise  which  was  thus  called  out  opens  with  a 
recognition  of  the  zeal  of  Pelagius.  As  it  burned  most 
ardently  against  those  who,  when  reproved  for  sin, 
take  refuge  in  censuring  their  nature,  Augustine  com- 
pares it  with  the  heathen  view  as  expressed  in  Sallust's 
saying,  "  The  human  race  falsely  complains  of  its  own 
nature."6  He  charges  it  therefore  with  not  being  ac- 
cording to  knowledge,  and  proposes  to  oppose  it  by 
an  equal  zeal  against  all  attempts  to  render  the  cross 
of  Christ  of  none  effect.  He  then  gives  a  brief  but 
excellent  summary  of  the  more  important  features  of 
the  catholic  doctrine  concerning  nature  and  grace  (2-7). 
Opening  the  work  of  Pelagius  which  had  been  placed 

1  Epistle  168.     On  the  Proceedings  of  Pelagius,  48. 

2  On  the  Proceedings  of  Pelagius,  47  ;  and  Epistle  186,  1. 

3  Compare  On  Nature  and  Grace,  7  ;  and  Epistle  186,  1. 

4  Epistle  169,  13. 

5  On  Nature  and  Grace,  1  ;  Sallust's  Jugurtha,  prologue. 


48    AUGUSTINE  AND    THE   PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY. 

in  his  hands,  he  examines  his  doctrine  of  sin,  its  nature 
and  effects.  Pelagius,  he  points  out,  draws  a  distinc- 
tion, sound  enough  in  itself,  between  what  is  "  possi- 
ble" and  what  is  "  actual,"  but  applies  it  unsoundly  to 
sin,  when  he  says  that  every  man  has  the  possibility  of 
being  without  sin  (8-9),  and  therefore  without  con- 
demnation. Not  so,  says  Augustine  :  an  infant  who 
dies  unbaptized  has  no  possibility  of  salvation  open  to 
him  ;  and  the  man  who  has  lived  and  died  in  a  land 
where  it  was  impossible  for  him  to  hear  the  name  of 
Christ  has  had  no  possibility  open  to  him  of  becoming 
righteous  by  nature  and  free  will.  If  this  be  not  so, 
Christ  is  dead  in  vain,  since  all  men  in  that  case  might 
have  accomplished  their  salvation,  even  if  Christ  had 
never  died  (10).  Pelagius,  moreover,  he  shows,  ex- 
hibits a  tendency  to  deny  the  sinful  character  of  all 
sins  which  are  impossible  to  avoid,  and  so  treats  of 
sins  of  ignorance  as  to  imply  that  he  entirely  excuses 
them  (13-19).  When  he  argues  that  no  sin,  because  it 
is  not  a  substance,  can  change  nature,  which  is  a  sub- 
stance, Augustine  replies  that  this  destroys  the  Sa- 
viour's work, — for  how  can  He  save  from  sins  if  sins 
do  not  corrupt  ?  And,  again,  if  an  act  cannot  injure  a 
substance,  how  can  abstention  from  food,  which  is  a 
mere  act,  kill  the  body  ?  In  the  same  way  sin  is  not  a 
substance  ;  but  God  is  a  substance, — yea,  the  height 
of  substance  and  only  true  sustenance  of  the  reason- 
able creature  ;  and  the  consequence  of  departure  from 
Him  is  to  the  soul  what  refusal  of  food  is  to  the  body 
(22).  To  Pelagius'  assertion  that  sin  cannot  be  pun- 
ished by  more  sin,  Augustine  replies  that  the  apostle 
thinks  differently  (Rom.  i.  21-31).  Then  putting  his 
finger  on  the  main  point  in  controversy,  he  quotes  the 
Scriptures  as  declaring  the  present  condition  of  man 
to  be  that  of  spiritual  death.  "  The  Truth  then  desig- 
nates as  dead  those  whom  this  man  declares  to  be  un- 
able to  be  damaged  or  corrupted  by  sin, — because,  for- 
sooth, he  has  discovered  sin  to  be  no  substance  !"  (25). 
It  was  by  free  will  that  man  passed  into  this  state  of 
death  ;  but  a  dead  man  needs  something  else  to  revive 
him, — he  needs  nothing  less  than  a  Vivifier.     But  of 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN  THE    CONTROVERSY.        49 

vivifying  grace,  Pelagius  knows  nothing  ;  and  by  know- 
ing nothing  of  a  Vivifier,  he  knows  nothing  of  a  Sa- 
viour ;  but  rather  by  making  nature  of  itself  able  to  be 
sinless,  he  glorifies  the  Creator  at  the  expense  of  the 
Saviour  (39).  Next  is  examined  Pelagius'  contention 
that  many  saints  are  enumerated  in  the  Scriptures  as 
having  lived  sinlessly  in  this  world.  While  declining 
to  discuss  the  question  of  fact  as  to  the  Virgin  Maty 
(42),  Augustine  opposes  to  the  rest  the  declaration  of 
John  in  1  John  i.  8  as  final,  but  still  pauses  to  explain 
why  the  Scriptures  do  not  mention  the  sins  of  all,  and 
to  contend  that  all  who  ever  were  saved,  under  the 
Old  Testament  or  under  the  New,  were  saved  by  the 
sacrificial  death  of  Christ  and  by  faith  in  Him  (40-50). 
Thus  we  are  brought,  as  Augustine  says,  to  the  core 
of  the  question,  which  concerns,  not  the  fact  of  sinless- 
ness  in  any  man,  but  man's  ability  to  be  sinless.  This 
ability  Pelagius  affirms  of  all  men,  and  Augustine  de- 
nies of  all  "  unless  they  are  justified  by  the  grace  of 
God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  Him  cruci- 
fied" (51).  Accordingly,  the  whole  discussion  con- 
cerns grace,  which  Pelagius  does  not  admit  in  any  true 
sense,  but  places  only  in  the  nature  that  God  has  made 

We  are  next  invited  to  attend  to  another  distinction 
of  Pelagius',  in  which  he  discriminates  sharply  between 
the  nature  that  God  has  made,  the  crown  of  which  is 
free  will,  and  the  use  that  man  makes  of  this  free  will. 
The  endowment  of  free  will  is  a  "capacity;"  it  is, 
because  given  by  God  in  our  making,  a  necessity  ot 
nature,  and  not  in  man's  power  to  have  or  not  have. 
It  is  the  right  use  of  it  only,  which  man  has  in  his 
power.  This  analysis  Pelagius  illustrates  at  length  by 
appealing  to  the  difference  between  the  possession  and 
use  of  the  various  bodily  senses.  The  ability  to  see, 
for  instance,  he  says,  is  a  necessity  of  our  nature  :  we 
do  not  make  it ;  we  cannot  help  having  it  ;  it  is  ours 
only  to  use  it.  Augustine  criticises  this  presentation 
of  the  matter  with  great  acuteness  (although  he  is  not 
averse  to  the  analysis  itself),  with  a  view  to  showing 
the  inapplicability  of  the  illustrations  used.     For,  he 


50  AUGUSTINE   AND    THE  PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY. 

asks,  is  it  not  possible  for  us  to  blind  ourselves,  and  so 
no  longer  have  the  ability  to  see  ?  And  would  not 
man}7  a  man  like  to  control  the  "  use"  of  his  "  capacity" 
to  hear  when  a  screechy  saw  is  in  the  neighbourhood  ? 
(55).  The  falsity  of  the  contention  illustrated,  he 
argues,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  Pelagius  has 
ignored  the  fall,  and,  even  were  that  not  so,  has  so 
ignored  the  need  of  God's  aid  for  all  good,  in  any  state 
of  being,  as  to  deny  it  (56).  Moreover,  it  is  altogether 
a  fallacy,  Augustine  argues,  to  contend  that  men  have 
the  "  ability"  to  make  every  use  we  can  conceive  of 
our  faculties.  We  cannot  wish  for  unhappiness  ;  God 
cannot  deny  Himself  (57)  :  and  just  so,  in  a  corrupt 
nature,  the  mere  possession  of  a  faculty  of  choice  does 
not  imply  the  ability  to  use  that  faculty  for  not  sinning. 
"  Of  a  man,  indeed,  who  has  his  legs  strong  and  sound, 
it  may  be  said  admissibly  enough,  '  whether  he  will  or 
not,  he  has  the  capacity  of  walking-  ;  '  but  if  his  legs 
be  broken,  however  much  he  may  wish  to  walk,  he  has 
not  the  '  capacity  '  to  do  so.  The  nature  of  which  our 
author  speaks  is  corrupted"  (57).  What,  then,  can  he 
mean  by  saying  that,  whether  we  will  or  not,  we  have 
the  capacity  of  not  sinning, — a  statement  so  opposite 
to  Paul's  in  Rom.  vii.  15?  Some  space  is  next  given 
to  an  attempted  rebuttal  by  Pelagius  of  the  testimony 
of  Gal.  v.  17,  on  the  ground  that  the  "  flesh"  there 
does  not  refer  to  the  baptized  (60-70).  Then  the  pas- 
sages are  examined  which  Pelagius  had  quoted  against 
Augustine  out  of  earlier  writers, — Lactantius  (71), 
Hilary  (72),  Ambrose  (75),  John  of  Constantinople  (76), 
Xystus,  — a  blunder  of  Pelagius',  who  quoted  from  a 
Pythagorean  philosopher,  mistaking  him  for  the  Ro- 
man bishop  Sixtus  (57),  Jerome  (78),  and  Augustine 
himself  (80).  All  these  writers,  Augustine  shows,  ad- 
mitted the  universal  sinfulness  of  man, — and  especially 
he  himself  had  confessed  the  necessity  of  grace  in  the 
immediate  context  of  the  passage  quoted  by  Pelagius. 
The  treatise  closes  (82  sq.)  with  a  noble  panegyric  on 
that  love  which  God  sheds  abroad  in  the  heart  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  by  which  alone  we  can  be  made 
keepers  of  the  law. 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN  THE    CONTROVERSY. 


Letter  to  Jerome  on  the  Origin  of  Souls. 

The  treatise  On  Nature  and  Grace  was  as  yet  unfin- 
ished when  the  over-busy1  scriptorium  at  Hippo  was 
invaded  by  another  young  man  seeking  instruction. 
This  time  it  was  a  zealous  young  presbyter  from  the 
remotest  parts  of  Spain, — "  from  the  shore  of  the 
ocean," — Paul  us  Orosius  by  name.  His  pious  soul 
had  been  afflicted  with  grievous  wounds  by  the  Pris- 
cillianist  and  Origenist  heresies  that  had  broken  out  in 
his  country,  and  he  had  come  with  eager  haste  to  Au- 
gustine on  hearing  that  he  could  get  from  him  the  in- 
struction which  he  needed  for  confuting  them.  Au- 
gustine seems  to  have  given  him  his  heart  at  once. 
But  feeling  too  little  informed  as  to  the  special  heresies 
which  Orosius  wished  to  be  prepared  to  controvert,  he 
persuaded  him  to  go  on  to  Palestine  to  be  taught  by 
Jerome,  and  gave  him  introductions  which  described 
him  as  one  ' '  who  is  in  the  bond  of  catholic  peace  a 
brother,  in  point  of  age  a  son,  and  in  dignity  a  fellow- 
presbyter, — a  man  of  quick  understanding,  ready 
speech  and  burning  zeal."  His  departure  to  Palestine 
gave  Augustine  an  opportunity  to  consult  with  Jerome 
on  the  one  point  that  had  been  raised  in  the  Pelagian 
controversy  on  which  he  had  not  been  able  to  see 
light.  The  Pelagians  had  early  argued 2  that,  if  souls 
are  created  new  for  men  at  their  birth,  it  would  be  un- 
just in  God  to  impute  Adam's  sin  to  them.  And  Au- 
gustine found  himself  unable  either  to  prove  that  souls 
are  transmitted  ("traduced, ' '  as  the  phrase  is),  or  to  show 
that  it  would  not  involve  God  in  injustice  to  create  a 
soul  only  to  make  it  subject  to  a  sin  committed  by  an- 
other. Jerome  had  already  put  himseli  on  record  as  a 
believer  in  both  original  sin  and  the  creation  of  souls  at 
the  time  of  birth.  Augustine  feared  the  logical  conse- 
quences of  this  assertion,  and  yet  was  unable  to  refute 

1  For  Augustine's  press  of  work  just  now,  see  Epistle  169,  1  and  13. 

2  The  argument  occurs  in  Pelagius'  Commentary  on  Paul,  written 
before  410,  and  is  already  before  Augustine  in  On  the  Merits  and 
Forgiveness  of  Sins,  etc.,  iii.  5. 


52     AUGUSTINE   AND    THE   PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY. 

it.  He  therefore  seized  this  occasion  to  send  a  long 
treatise  on  the  origin  of  the  soul  to  his  friend,  with  the 
request  that  he  would  consider  the  subject  afresh,  and 
answer  his  doubts.1 

In  this  treatise  he  stated  that  he  was  fully  persuaded 
that  the  soul  had  fallen  into  sin  by  no  fault  of  God  or 
of  nature,  but  of  its  own  free  will  ;  and  asked  when 
could  the  soul  of  an  infant  have  contracted  the  guilt 
which,  unless  the  grace  of  Christ  should  come  to  its 
rescue  by  baptism,  would  involve  it  in  condemnation, 
if  God  (as  Jerome  held,  and  as  he  was  willing  to  hold 
with  him,  if  this  difficulty  could  be  cleared  up)  makes 
each  soul  for  each  individual  at  the  time  of  birth  ?  He 
professed  himself  embarrassed  on  such  a  supposition 
by  the  penal  sufferings  of  infants,  by  the  pains  they  en- 
dure in  this  life,  and  much  more  by  the  danger  they 
are  in  of  eternal  damnation,  into  which  they  actually 
go  unless  saved  by  baptism.  God  is  good,  just,  om- 
nipotent :  how,  then,  can  we  account  for  the  fact  that 
"  in  Adam  all  die,"  if  souls  are  created  afresh  for  each 
birth  ?  "If  new  souls  are  made  for  men  individually 
at  their  birth,"  he  affirms,  "1  do  not  see,  on  the  one 
hand,  that  they  could  have  any  sin  while  yet  in  in- 
fancy ;  nor  do  I  believe,  on  the  other  hand,  that  God 
condemns  any  soul  which  He  sees  to  have  no  sin." 
"  And  yet,  whoever  says  that  those  children  who  de- 
part out  of  this  life  without  partaking  of  the  sacrament 
of  baptism,  shall  be  made  alive  in  Christ,  certainly  con- 
tradicts the  apostolic  declaration,"  and  "  he  that  is  not 
made  alive  in  Christ  must  necessarily  remain  under  the 
condemnation  of  which  the  apostle  says  that  by  the 
offence  of  one  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  con- 
demnation." "  Wherefore,"  he  adds  to  his  corre- 
spondent, "  if  that  opinion  of  yours  does  not  contradict 
this  firmly  grounded  article  of  faith,  let  it  be  mine 
also;  but  if  it  does,  let  it  no  longer  be  yours."  a     So 

'  Epistle  1 66. 

8  An  almost  contemporary  letter  to  Oceanus  {Epistle  180,  written 
in  416)  adverts  to  the  same  subject  and  in  the  same  spirit,  showing 
how  much  it  was  in  Augustine's  thoughts.  Compare  Epistle  180, 
2  and  5. 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN  THE  CONTROVERSY.        53 

far  as  obtaining-  light  was  concerned,  Augustine  might 
have  spared  himself  the  trouble  of  this  composition. 
Jerome  simply  answered  '  that  he  had  no  leisure  to 
reply  to  the  questions  submitted  to  him.  But  Orosius' 
mission  to  Palestine  was  big  with  consequences.  Once 
there,  he  became  the  accuser  of  Pelagius  before  John 
of  Jerusalem,  and  the  occasion,  at  least,  of  the  trials  of 
Pelagius  in  Palestine  during  the  summer  and  winter  of 
415,  which  issued  so  disastrously  and  ushered  in  a  new 
phase  of  the  conflict. 

The  Treatise  on  "  The  Perfection  of  Man  s  Righteousness." 

Meanwhile,  however,  Augustine  was  ignorant  of 
what  was  going  on  in  the  East,  and  had  his  mind 
directed  again  to  Sicily.  About  a  year  had  passed 
since  he  had  sent  thither  his  long  letter  to  Hilary. 
Now  his  conjecture  that  Coelestius  was  in  some  way  at 
the  bottom  of  the  Sicilian  outbreak,  received  confirma- 
tion from  a  paper  which  certain  Catholic  brethren 
brought  out  of  Sicily,  and  which  was  handed  to  Augus- 
tine by  two  exiled  Spanish  bishops,  Eutropius  and 
Paul.  This  paper  bore  the  title,  Definitions  Ascribed  to 
Ccelestins,  and  presented  internal  evidence,  in  style  and 
thought,  of  being  correctly  so  ascribed.2  It  consisted 
of  three  parts.  In  the  first  of  these  were  collected  a 
series  of  brief  and  compressed  ' '  definitions, "  or  "  ratio- 
cinations" as  Augustine  calls  them,  in  which  the  author 
tries  to  place  the  Catholics  in  a  logical  dilemma,  and  to 
force  them  to  admit  that  man  can  live  in  this  world 
without  sin.  In  the  second  part,  there  were  adduced 
certain  passages  of  Scripture  in  defence  of  Pelagian 
doctrine.  In  the  third  part,  an  attempt  was  made  to 
deal  with  the  texts  that  had  been  quoted  against  the 
Pelagian  contention,  not,  however,  by  examining  into 
their  meaning,  or  seeking  to  explain  them  in  the  sense 
of  the  new  theory,  but  simply  by  matching  them  with 
others  which  might  be  thought  to  make  for  it.  In 
answer  to  this  paper,    Augustine  at  once  (about  the 

1  Epistle  172. 

2  See  On  the  Perfection  of  Man's  Righteousness,  1. 


54    AUGUSTINE  AND    THE  PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY. 

end  of  415)  wrote  a  treatise  which  bears  the  title  of 
On  the  Perfection  of  Man's  Righteousness. 

The  distribution  of  the  matter  in  this  work  follows 
that  of  the  paper  to  which  it  is  a  reply.  First  of 
all  (1-16),  the  "  ratiocinations"  are  taken  up  one  by 
one  and  briefly  answered.  As  they  all  concern  sin  and 
have  for  their  object  to  prove  that  man  cannot  be  ac- 
counted a  sinner  unless  he  is  able,  in  his  own  power, 
wholly  to  avoid  sin — that  is,  to  prove  that  a  plenary 
natural  ability  is  the  necessary  basis  of  responsibility — 
Augustine  argues  per  contra  that  man  can  entail  a  sin- 
fulness on  himself  for  which  and  for  the  deeds  of  which 
he  remains  responsible,  though  he  be  no  longer  able  to 
avoid  sin  ;  he  thus  allows  that,  for  the  race,  plenary 
ability  must  stand  at  the  root  of  sinfulness.  Next 
(17-22),  he  discusses  the  passages  of  Scripture  which 
Coelestius  had  advanced  in  defence  of  his  teachings. 
These  include  two  classes  of  texts.  There  were  (1) 
passages  in  which  God  commands  men  to  be  without 
sin.  These  Augustine  meets  by  saying  that  the  point 
is,  whether  these  commands  are  to  be  fulfilled  without 
God's  aid,  in  the  body  of  this  death,  while  absent  from 
the  Lord  (17-20).  There  were  also  (2)  passages  in  which 
God  declares  that  His  commandments  are  not  grievous. 
These  Augustine  meets  by  explaining  that  all  God's 
commandments  are  fulfilled  only  by  love,  which  finds 
nothing  grievous  ;  and  that  this  love  is  shed  abroad  in 
our  hearts  only  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  without  whom  we 
have  only  fear,  to  which  the  commandments  are  not  only 
grievous  but  impossible.  Lastly,  Augustine  patiently 
follows  Coelestius  through  his  odd  "  oppositions  of 
texts,"  carefully  explaining,  in  an  orthodox  sense,  all 
that  he  had  adduced  (23-42).  In  closing,  he  takes  up 
Coelestius'  statement  that  "  it  is  quite  possible  for  man 
not  to  sin  even  in  word,  if  God  so  will,"  pointing  out 
how  he  avoids  saying  "if  God  give  him  His  aid," 
and  then  proceeds  to  distinguish  carefully  between  the 
differing  assertions  of  sinlessness  that  may  be  made. 
To  say  that  any  man  ever  lived,  or  will  live,  without 
needing  forgiveness,  is  to  contradict  Rom.  v.  12,  and 
must  imply  that  he  does  not  need  a  Saviour,  against 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN  THE  CONTROVERSY.         55 

Matt.  ix.  12.  13.  To  say  that,  after  his  sins  have  been 
forgiven,  any  one  has  ever  remained  without  sin,  con- 
tradicts 1  John  i.  8  and  Matt.  vi.  12.  Vet,  if  God's 
help  be  allowed,  this  contention  is  not  so  wicked  as  the 
other  ;  the  great  heresy  is  to  den)-  the  necessity  of 
God's  constant  grace,  for  which  we  pray  when  we  say, 
"  Lead  us  not  into  temptation." 

Activity  Subsequent  to  the  Palestinian  Acquittal. 

Tidings  were  now  (416)  beginning  to  reach  Africa  ot 
what  was  doing  in  the  East.  ,.  There  was  diligently  cir- 
culated everywhere  and  finally  came  into  Augustine's 
hands,  an  epistle  of  Pelagius'  own  "  filled  with  van- 
ity." In  it  he  boasted  that  fourteen  bishops  had  ap- 
proved his  assertion  that  "  man  can  live  without  sin, 
and  easily  keep  the  commandments  if  he  wishes,"  and 
had  thus  ' 4  shut  the  mouth  of  opposition  in  confusion" 
and  "  broken  up  the  whole  band  of  wicked  conspir- 
ators against  him."  Soon  afterwards  a  copy  of  an 
"  apologetical  paper,"  in  which  Pelagius  used  the 
authority  of  the  Palestinian  bishops  against  his  adver- 
saries, not  altogether  without  disingenuousness,  was 
sent  by  him  to  Augustine  through  the  hands  of  a  com- 
mon acquaintance,  Charus  by  name.  It  was  not  ac- 
companied, however,  by  any  letter  from  Pelagius  ;  and 
Augustine  wisely  refrained  from  making  public  use  of 
it.  Towards  midsummer  Orosius  came  with  more 
authentic  information,  and  bearing  letters  from  Jerome 
and  Heros  and  Lazarus. 

It  was  apparently  before  Orosius  came  that  a  contro- 
versial sermon  was  preached,  only  a  fragment  of  which 
has  come  down  to  us.'  So  far  as  we  can  learn  from 
the  extant  part,  its  subject  seems  to  have  been  the  re- 
lation of  prayer  to  Pelagianism  ;  and  what  we  have 
opens  with  a  striking  anecdote.  "  When  these  two 
petitions — '  Porgive  us  our  debts  as  we  also  forgive 
our  debtors,'  and  '  Lead  us  not  into  temptation' — are 
objected  to  the  Pelagians,  what  do  you  think  they  re- 

1  Migne's  Edition  of  Augustine's  Works,  vol.  v.  pp.  1719-1723. 


56    AUGUSTINE  AND    THE  PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY. 

ply  ?  I  was  horrified,  my  brethren,  when  1  heard  it. 
I  did  not,  indeed,  hear  it  with  my  own  ears  ;  but  my 
holy  brother  and  fellow-bishop  Lrbanus,  who  used  to 
be  presbyter  here  and  now  is  bishop  of  Sicca,"  when 
he  was  in  Rome  and  was  arguing  with  one  who  held 
these  opinions,  pressed  him  with  the  weight  of  the 
Lord's  Prayer,  and  "  what  do  you  think  he  replied  to 
him?  '  We  ask  God,' he  said,  'not  to  lead  us  into 
temptation  lest  we  should  suffer  something  that  is  not 
in  our  power — lest  1  should  be  thrown  from  my  horse, 
lest  1  should  break  my  leg,  lest  a  robber  should  slay 
me,  and  the  like.  For  these  things,'  he  said,  '  are  not 
in  my  power  ;  but  for  overcoming  the  temptations  of 
my  sins,  I  both  have  ability  if  1  wish  to  use  it,  and  am 
not  able  to  receive  God's  help.' '  You  see,  brethren," 
the  good  bishop  adds,  "  how  malignant  this  heresy  is  : 
you  see  how  it  horrifies  all  of  you.  Have  a  care  that 
you  be  not  taken  by  it."  He  then  presses  the  general 
doctrine  of  prayer  as  proving  that  all  good  things  come 
from  God,  whose  aid  is  always  necessary  to  us  and  is 
always  attainable  by  prayer  ;  and  closes  as  follows  : 
"  Consider,  then,  these  things,  my  brethren,  when  any 
one  comes  to  you  and  says  to  you,  '  What,  then,  are  we 
to  do  if  we  have  nothing  in  our  power,  unless  God  gives 
all  things  ?  God  will  not  then  crown  us,  but  He  will 
crown  Himself.'  You  already  see  that  this  comes  from 
that  vein  :  it  is  a  vein,  but  it  has  poison  in  it  ;  it  is 
stricken  by  the  serpent  ;  it  is  not  sound.  For  what 
Satan  is  doing  to-day  is  seeking  to  cast  out  from  the 
Church  by  the  poison  of  heretics,  just  as  he  once  cast 
out  from  Paradise  by  the  poison  of  the  serpent.  Let 
no  one  tell  you  that  this  one  was  acquitted  by  the  bish- 
ops :  there  was  an  acquittal,  but  it  was  his  confession, 
so  to  speak,  his  amendment,  that  was  acquitted.  For 
what  he  said  before  the  bishops  seemed  catholic  ;  but 
what  he  has  written  in  his  books,  the  bishops  who  pro- 
nounced the  acquittal  were  ignorant  of.  And  per- 
chance he  was  really  convinced  and  amended.  For 
we  ought  not  to  despair  of  the  man  who  perchance 

'  Compare  the  words  of  Cicero  quoted  above,  vol.  xiv.,  p.  467. 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN  THE  CONTROVERSY.        57 

preferred  to  be  united  to  the  catholic  faith  and  fled  to 
its  grace  and  aid.  Perchance  this  was  what  happened. 
But,  in  any  event,  it  was  not  the  heresy  that  was  ac- 
quitted, but  the  man  who  denied  the  heresy."  ' 

The  coming-  of  Orosius  must  have  dispelled  any  lin- 
gering hope  that  the  meaning  of  the  council's  finding 
was  that  Pelagius  had  really  recanted.  Councils  were 
immediately  assembled  at  Carthage  and  Mileve,  and 
the  documents  which  Orosius  had  brought  were  read 
before  them.  We  know  nothing  of  their  proceedings 
except  what  we  can  gather  from  the  letters2  which  they 
sent  to  Innocent  at  Rome,  seeking  his  aid  in  their  con- 
demnation of  the  heresy  now  so  nearly  approved  in 
Palestine.  To  these  two  official  letters,  Augustine,  in 
company  with  four  other  bishops,  added  a  private  let- 
ter,3 in  which  care  was  taken  that  Innocent  should  be 
informed  on  all  the  points  necessary  to  his  decision. 
This  important  letter  begins  almost  abruptly  with  a 
characterization  of  Pelagianism  as  inimical  to  the  grace 
of  God,  and  has  grace  for  its  subject  throughout.  It 
accounts  for  the  action  of  the  Palestinian  synod  as 
growing  out  of  a  misunderstanding  of  Pelagius'  words, 
in  which  he  seemed  to  acknowledge  grace.  Those 
catholic  bishops  naturally  would  understand  this  to 
mean  that  grace  of  which  they  read  in  the  Scriptures, 
and  which  they  were  accustomed  to  preach  to  their 
people, — the  grace  by  wnich  we  are  justified  from 
iniquity,  and  saved  from  weakness.  While  Pelagius 
really  meant  nothing  more  than  that  "  grace"  by  which 
we  are  given  free  will  at  our  creation.  "  For  if  these 
bishops  had  understood  that  he  meant  only  that  grace 
which  we  have  in  common  with  the  ungodly  and  with 
all  along  with  whom  we  are  men,  while  he  denied  that 
by  which  we  are  Christians  and  the  sons  of  God,  they 
not  only  could  not  have  patiently  listened  to  him, — they 

1  Compare  the  similar  words  in  Epistle  177,  3,  which  was  written, 
not  only  after  what  had  occurred  in  Palestine  was  known,  but  also 
after  the  condemnatory  decisions  of  the  African  synods. 

5  Epistles  175  and  176  in  Augustine's  Letters. 

3  Epistle  177.  The  other  bishops  were  Aurelius,  Alypius,  Evodius, 
and  Possidius. 


5 8     AUGUSTINE   AND    THE  PELAGIAN   CONTROVERSY. 

could  not  even  have  borne  him  before  their  eyes." 
The  letter  then  proceeds  to  point  out  the  difference  be- 
tween grace  and  natural  gifts,  and  between  grace  and 
the  law,  and  to  trace  out  Pelagius'  meaning  when  he 
speaks  of  grace  and  when  he  contends  that  man  can 
be  sinless  without  any  really  inward  aid.  It  suggests 
that  Pelagius  be  sent  for  and  thoroughly  examined  by 
Innocent  ;  or  that  he  should  be  examined  by  letter  or  in 
his  writings  ;  and  that  he  be  not  cleared  until  he  should 
unequivocally  confess  the  grace  of  God  in  the  cath- 
olic sense,  and  anathematize  the  false  teachings  in  the 
books  attributed  to  him.  The  book  of  Pelagius  which 
was  answered  in  the  treatise  On  Nature  and  Grace  was 
enclosed  with  this  letter,  with  the  most  important  pas- 
sages marked  :  and  it  was  suggested  that  more  was  in- 
volved in  the  matter  than  the  fate  of  one  single  man, 
Pelagius,  who,  perhaps,  was  already  brought  to  a  bet- 
ter mind  ;  the  fate  of  multitudes  already  led  astray,  or 
yet  to  be  deceived  by  these  false  views,  was  in  danger. 
At  about  this  same  time  (417),  the  tireless  bishop  sent 
a  short  letter  '  to  a  Hilary  who  seems  to  be  "Hilary  of 
Norbonne,  which  is  interesting  from  the  attempt  made 
in  it  to  convey  a  characterization  of  Pelagianism  to  one 
who  was  as  yet  ignorant  of  it.  It  thus  brings  out  what 
Augustine  conceived  to  be  its  essential  features.  "  An 
effort  has  been  made,"  we  read,  "  to  raise  a  certain 
new  heresy,  inimical  to  the  grace  of  Christ,  against  the 
Church  of  Christ.  It  is  not  yet  openly  separated  from 
the  Church.  It  is  the  heresy  of  men  who  dare  to  at- 
tribute so  much  power  to  human  weakness  that  they 
contend  that  this  only  belongs  to  God's  grace, — that 
we  are  created  with  free  will  and  the  possibility  of  not 
sinning,  and  that  we  receive  God's  commandments, 
which  are  to  be  fulfilled  by  us  ;  while,  for  keeping  and 
fulfilling  these  commandments,  we  do  not  need  any 
divine  aid.  No  doubt,  the  remission  of  sins  is  neces- 
sary for  us  ;  for  we  have  no  power  to  right  what 
we  have  done  wrong  in  the  past.  But  for  avoiding 
and   overcoming   sins   in   the   future,   for   conquering 

1  Epistle  178. 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN  THE  CONTROVERSY.        59 

all  temptations  with  virtue,  the  human  will  is  suffi- 
cient by  its  natural  capacity  without  any  aid  of  God's 
grace.  And  neither  do  infants  need  the  grace  of  the 
Saviour,  so  as  to  be  delivered  from  perdition  by  it 
through  His  baptism,  seeing  that  they  have  contract- 
ed no  contagion  of  damnation  from  Adam."  !  He  en- 
gages Hilary  in  the  destruction  of  this  heresy,  which 
ought  to  be  "  concordantly  condemned  and  anathema- 
tized by  all  who  have  hope  in  Christ,"  as  a  "  pestifer- 
ous impiety,"  and  excuses  himself  for  not  undertaking 
its  full  refutation  in  a  brief  letter. 

A  much  more  important  letter  was  dispatched  at 
about  the  same  time  to  John  of  Jerusalem,  who  had 
conducted  the  first  Palestinian  examination  of  Pela- 
gius  and  had  borne  a  prominent  part  in  the  synod  at 
Diospolis.  With  it  was  sent  a  copy  of  Pelagius'  book 
which  had  been  examined  in  the  treatise  On  Nature  and 
Grace,  as  well  as  a  copy  of  that  reply  itself  ;  and  John 
was  asked  to  send  Augustine  an  authentic  copy  of  the 
proceedings  at  Diospolis.  Augustine  took  this  occa- 
sion seriously  to  warn  his  brother  bishop  against  the 
wiles  of  Pelagius,  and  to  beg  him,  if  he  loved  Pelagius, 
to  let  men  see  that  he  did  not  so  love  him  as  to  be  de- 
ceived by  him.  He  pointed  out  that  in  the  book  sent 
with  the  letter,  Pelagius  called  nothing  the  grace  of 
God  except  nature  ;  and  that  he  affirmed,  and  even  vehe- 
mently contended,  that  by  free  will  alone  human  na- 
ture was  able  to  suffice  for  itself  for  working  righteous- 
ness and  keeping  all  God's  commandments.  From  this 
any  one  could  see  that  he  opposed  the  grace  of  God  of 
which  the  apostles  spoke  in  Rom.  vii.  24,  25,  and  con- 
tradicted, as  well,  all  the  prayers  and  benedictions  of 
the  Church  by  which  blessings  were  sought  for  men 
from  God's  grace.  "  If  you  love  Pelagius,  then,"  he 
continued,  "  let  him,  too,  love  you  as  himself, — nay, 
more  than  himself  ;  and  let  him  not  deceive  you.  For 
when  you  hear  him  confess  the  grace  of  God  and  the 
aid  of  God,  you  think  he  means  what  you  mean  by  it. 
But  let  him  be  openly  asked  whether  he  is  willing  that 

1  Epistle  179. 


60    AUGUSTINE  AND    THE  PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY. 

we  should  pray  God  that  we  sin  not ;  whether  he 
preaches  the  assisting-  grace  oi  God  without  which  we 
would  do  much  evil  ;  whether  he  believes  that  even 
children  who  have  not  yet  been  able  to  do  good  or  evil 
are  nevertheless,  on  account  ol  one  man  by  whom  sin 
entered  into  the  world,  sinners  in  him,  and  in  need  of 
being  delivered  by  the  grace  of  Christ."  If  he  frankly 
denies  such  things,  Augustine  would  be  pleased  to 
hear  of  it. 

Thus  we  see  the  great  bishop  sitting  in  his  library  at 
Hippo,  placing  his  hands  on  the  two  ends  of  the  world. 
That  nothing  may  be  lacking  to  the  picture  of  his 
universal  activity,  we  have  another  letter  from  him, 
coming  from  about  this  same  time,  that  exhibits  his 
care  for  the  individuals  who  had  placed  themselves  in 
some  sort  under  his  tutelage.  Among  the  refugees 
from  Rome  in  the  terrible  times  when  Alaric  was  a  sec- 
ond time  threatening  the  city,  was  a  family  of  noble 
women,  Proba,  Juliana  and  Demetrias,1— grandmother, 
mother,  and  daughter — who,  finding  an  asylum  in  Af- 
rica, gave  themselves  to  God's  service  and  sought  the 
friendship  and  counsel  of  Augustine.  In  413  the  grand- 
daughter *'  took  the  veil"  under  circumstances  that 
thrilled  the  Christian  world,  and  brought  out  letters  of 
congratulation  and  advice  from  Augustine  and  Jerome, 
and  also  from  Pelagius.  This  letter  of  Pelagius  seems 
not  to  have  fallen  into  Augustine's  way  until  now  (416). 
He  was  so  disturbed  by  it  that  he  wrote  to  Juliana  a 
long  letter  warning  her  against  its  evil  counsels.2  It 
was  so  shrewdly  phrased  that,  at  first  sight,  Augustine 
was  himself  almost  persuaded  that  it  did  somehow  ac- 
knowledge the  grace  of  God  ;  but  when  he  compared 
it  with  others  of  Pelagius'  writings,  he  saw  that,  here 
too,  he  was  using  ambiguous  terms  in  a  non-natural 
sense.  The  object  of  his  own  letter  (in  which  Alypius 
is  conjoined  as  joint  author)  is  to  warn  Juliana  and  her 

1  See  The  Nicene  and  Post-Nicene  Fathers,  New  York  ed. ,  vol.  i. , 
p.  459,  and  the  references  there  given.  Compare  Canon  Robertson's 
vivid  account  of  them  in  his  History  of  the  Christian  Church,  ii. 
18,  145. 

J  Epistle  188. 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN  THE  CONTROVERSY.        6l 

holy  daughter  against  all  opinions  that  opposed  the 
grace  of  God,  and  especially  against  the  covert  teach- 
ing of  the  letter  of  Pelagius  to  Demetrias.1  "  In  this 
book,"  he  says,  "  were  it  lawful  for  such  an  one  to 
read  it,  a  virgin  of  Christ  would  read  that  her  holiness 
and  all  her  spiritual  riches  are  to  spring  from  no  other 
source  than  herself  ;  and  thus,  before  she  attains  to  the 
perfection  of  blessedness,  she  would  learn — which  may 
God  forbid  ! — to  be  ungrateful  to  God."  He  quotes 
the  words  of  Pelagius  in  which  he  declares  that ' '  earthly 
riches  came  from  others,  but  your  spiritual  riches  no 
one  can  have  conferred  on  you  but  yourself  ;  for  these, 
then,  you  are  justly  praised,  for  these  you  are  deservedly 
to  be  preferred  to  others — for  they  can  exist  only  from 
yourself  and  in  yourself."  And  then,  he  continues  : 
"  Far  be  it  from  any  virgin  to  listen  to  statements  like 
these.  Every  virgin  of  Christ  understands  the  innate 
poverty  of  the  human  heart,  and  therefore  declines  to  be 
adorned  otherwise  than  by  the  gifts  of  her  Spouse.  .  .  . 
Let  her  not  listen  to  him  who  says,  '  No  one  can  con- 
fer them  on  you  but  yourself,  and  they  cannot  exist 
except  from  you  and  in  you  :  '  but  to  him  who  says, 
'  We  have  this  treasure  in  earthen  vessels,  that  the  ex- 
cellency of  the  power  may  be  of  God,  and  not  of  us.' 
And  be  not  surprised  that  we  speak  of  these  things  as 
yours,  and  not  from  you  ;  for  we  speak  of  daily  bread 
as  '  ours,'  but  yet  add,  '  Give  it  to  us,'  lest  it  should  be 
thought  it  was  from  ourselves."  Again,  he  instructs 
her  that  grace  is  not  mere  knowledge,  any  more  than 
mere  nature  ;  and  that  Pelagius,  even  when  using  the 
word  "  grace,"  means  no  inward  or  efficient  aid,  but 
mere  nature  or  knowledge  or  forgiveness  of  past  sins  : 
and  beseeches  her  not  to  forget  the  God  of  all  grace 
from  whom  (Wisdom  i.  20,  21)  Demetrias  had  that 
very  virgin  continence  which  was  so  justly  her  boast. 

With  the  opening  of  417,  came  the  answers  from  In- 
nocent to  the  African  letters.1  They  were  marred  by 
much  boastful  language  concerning  the  dignity  of  his 

1  Compare  On  the  Grace  of  Christ,  40.     In  the  succeeding  sections, 
some  of  its  statements  are  examined. 
5  Epistles  181,  1S2,  183,  among  Augustine's  Letters. 


62     AUGUSTINE  AND  THE  PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY. 

See,  which  could  not  but  be  distasteful  to  the  Africans. 
But  they  admirably  served  their  purpose  in  the  satis- 
factory manner  in  which,  on  the  one  hand,  the}-  assert- 
ed the  necessity  of  the  "  daily  grace  and  help  of  God" 
for  our  good  living,  and,  on  the  other,  they  determined 
that  the  Pelagians  had  denied  this  grace,  and  declared 
their  leaders,  Pelagius  and  Ccelestius,  deprived  of  the 
communion  of  the  Church  until  they  should  "  recover 
their  senses  from  the  wiles  of  the  Devil  by  whom  they 
are  held  captive  according  to  his  will."  Augustine 
may  be  pardoned  for  supposing  that  a  condemnation 
pronounced  by  two  provincial  synods  in  Africa  and 
heartily  concurred  in  by  the  Roman  bishop,  who  had 
already  at  Jerusalem  been  recognized  as  in  some  sort 
the  fit  arbiter  of  this  Western  dispute,  should  settle 
the  matter.  If  Pelagius  had  been  jubilant  before,  Au- 
gustine found  this  a  suitable  time  for  his  rejoicing. 

The   Treatise  on  "  The  Proceedings  in  Palestine,'"  and  the 
Letter  to  Paulinus. 

About  the  same  time  with  Innocent's  letters,  the 
official  proceedings  of  the  synod  of  Diospolis  at  last 
reached  Africa,  and  Augustine  lost  no  time  in  pub- 
lishing (early  in  417)  a  full  account  and  examination  of 
them,  thus  providing  us  with  that  inestimable  boon,  a 
full  contemporary  history  of  the  chief  events  connected 
with  the  controversy  up  to  this  time.  He  addresses 
this  treatise  to  Aurelius,  bishop  of  Carthage,  and  opens 
with  an  explanation  of  his  delay  in  discussing  Pelagius' 
defence  of  himself  in  Palestine,  as  due  to  his  not  having 
earlier  received  the  official  copy  of  the  Proceedings  of 
the  Council  at  Diospolis  (i-2#).  Then  he  proceeds  to 
discuss  at  length  the  doings  of  the  synod,  point  by 
point,  following  the  official  record  step  by  step  (2^-45). 
He  treats  at  large  here  eleven  items  in  the  indictment, 
with  Pelagius'  answers  and  the  synod's  decisions  ;  and 
shows  that  in  all  of  them  Pelagius  either  explained 
away  his  heresy,  taking  advantage  of  the  judges' 
ignorance  of  his  books,  or  else  openly  repudiated  or 
anathematized  it.  Augustine  points  out  that  when  it 
reached  the  twelfth  item  of  the  indictment  (41^-43) — 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN    THE    CONTROVERSY.       63 

which  charged  Pelagius  with  teaching  that  men  cannot 
be  sons  of  God  unless  they  are  sinless,  and  with  con- 
doning sins  of  ignorance,  and  with  asserting  that  choice 
is  not  free  if  it  depends  on  God's  help  and  that  pardon 
is  given  according  to  merit — the  synod  was  so  indig- 
nant, that,  without  waiting  for  Pelagius'  answer,  it 
condemned  the  statement ;  and  Pelagius  at  once  repudi- 
ated and  anathematized  it  (43).  How  could  the  synod 
act  in  such  circumstances,  he  asks,  except  by  acquitting 
the  man  who  condemned  the  heresy  ?  After  quoting 
the  final  judgment  of  the  synod  (44),  Augustine  briefly 
characterizes  it  and  its  effect  (45)  as  being  indeed  all 
that  could  be  expected  of  the  judges,  but  of  no  moral 
weight  to  those  better  acquainted  than  they  were  with 
Pelagius'  character  and  writings.  In  a  word,  they  ap- 
proved his  answers  to  them,  as  indeed  they  ought  to 
have  done  ;  but  they  by  no  means  approved,  but  both 
they  and  he  condemned,  his  heresies  as  expressed  in 
his  writings.  To  this  statement,  Augustine  appends 
an  account  of  the  origin  of  Pelagianism  and  of  his  rela- 
tions to  it  from  the  beginning,  which  has  the  very  high- 
est value  as  history  (46-49)  ;  and  then  speaks  of  the 
character  and  doubtful  practices  of  Pelagius  (50-58), 
returning  at  the  end  (59-65)  to  a  thorough  canvass  of 
the  value  of  the  acquittal  which  he  obtained  by  such 
doubtful  practices  at  the  synod.  He  closes  with  an 
indignant  account  of  the  outrages  which  the  Pelagians 
had  perpetrated  on  Jerome  (66). 

This  valuable  treatise  is  not,  however,  the  only  ac- 
count of  the  historical  origin  of  Pelagianism  that  we 
have  from  Augustine's  hands.  Soon  after  the  death 
of  Innocent  (March  12,  417),  he  found  occasion  to  write 
a  very  long  letter1  to  the  venerable  Paulinus  of  Nola, 
in  which  he  summarized  both  the  history  of  and  the 
arguments  against  this  "  worldly  philosophy."  He 
begins  by  saying  that  he  knows  Paulinus  has  in  the  past 
loved  Pelagius  as  a  servant  of  God,  but  is  ignorant  in 
what  way  he  now  loves  him.  For  he  himself  not  only 
has  loved  him  but  loves  him  still,  but  in  different  ways. 
Once  he  loved  him  as  apparently  a  brother  in  the  true 
faith  :  now  he  loves  him  in  the  longing  that  God  will 
1  Epistle  186,  written  conjointly  with  Alypius. 


64     AUGUSTINE  AND  THE  PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY. 

by  His  mercy  free  him  from  his  noxious  opinions 
against  God's  grace.  He  is  not  merely  following  re- 
port in  so  speaking  of  him.  No  doubt  report  had  for 
a  long  time  represented  this  of  him,  but  the  less  heed 
had  been  given  to  it  because  report  is  accustomed  to  lie. 
But  a  book  by  Pelagius1  at  last  came  into  his  hands 
which  left  no  room  for  doubt,  since  in  it  it  was  asserted 
repeatedly  that  God's  grace  consists  of  the  gift  to  man 
of  the  capacity  to  will  and  act,  and  thus  was  reduced  to 
what  is  common  to  pagans  and  Christians,  to  the  un- 
godly and  godly,  to  the  faithful  and  infidels.  He  then 
gives  a  brief  account  of  the  measures  that  had  been 
taken  against  Pelagius,  and  passes  on  to  a  treatment 
of  the  main  matters  involved  in  the  controversy, — all 
of  which  gather  around  the  one  magic  word  of  "  the 
grace  of  God."  He  argues  first  that  we  are  all  lost, 
— in  one  mass  and  concretion  of  perdition, — and  that 
God's  grace  alone  makes  us  to  differ.  It  is  therefore 
folly  to  talk  of  deserving  the  beginnings  of  grace.  Nor 
can  a  faithful  man  say  that  he  merits  justification  by 
his  faith,  although  it  is  given  to  faith  ;  for  at  once  he 
hears  the  words,  ' '  What  hast  thou  that  thou  didst  not 
leceive?"  and  learns  that  even  the  deserving  faith  is 
the  gift  of  God.  But  if,  peering  into  God's  inscruta- 
ble judgments,  we  go  farther,  and  ask  why  from  the 
mass  of  Adam,  all  of  which  undoubtedly  has  fallen  by 
one  into  condemnation,  this  vessel  is  made  for  honor, 
that  for  dishonor, — we  can  only  say  that  we  do  not 
know  more  than  the  fact,  and  that  God's  reasons  are  hid- 
den but  His  acts  are  just.  Certain  it  is  that  Paul 
teaches  that  all  die  in  Adam  ;  and  that  God,  by  a 
sovereign  election,  freely  chooses  out  of  that  sinful 
mass  some  to  eternal  life  ;  and  that  He  knew  from  the 
beginning  to  whom  He  would  give  this  grace,  and  so 
the  number  of  the  saints  has  always  been  fixed,  to 
whom  He  gives  in  due  time  the  Holy  Ghost.  Others, 
no  doubt,  are  called  ;  but  no  others  are  elect,  or  ' '  called 
according  to  His  purpose."    On  no  other  body  of  doc- 


1  The  book  given  him  by  Timasius  and  James,  to  which  On  Nature 
and  Grace  is  a  reply. 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN   THE   CONTROVERSY.       65 

trines  can  it  be  possibly  explained  that  some  infants 
die  unbaptized  and  are  lost.  Is  God  unjust  to  punish 
innocent  children  with  eternal  pains  ?  And  are  they 
not  innocent  it  they  are  not  partakers  of  Adam's  sin  ? 
And  can  they  be  saved  from  that,  save  by  the  unde- 
served, and  that  is  the  gratuitous,  grace  of  God  ?  The 
account  of  the  proceedings  at  the  Palestinian  synod  is 
then  taken  up,  and  Pelagius'  position  in  his  latest  writ- 
ings is  quoted  and  examined.  "  But  why  say  more  ?" 
he  adds.  ...  "  Ought  they  not,  since  they  call  them- 
selves Christians,  to  be  more  careful  than  the  Jews 
that  they  do  not  stumble  at  the  stone  of  offence,  while 
they  subtly  defend  nature  and  free  will  just  like  phi- 
losophers of  this  world  who  vehemently  strive  to  be 
thought,  or  to  think  themselves,  to  attain  for  them- 
selves a  happy  life  by  the  force  of  their  own  will  ?  Let 
them  take  care,  then,  that  they  do  not  make  the  cross 
of  Christ  of  none  effect  by  the  wisdom  of  word  (1  Cor.  i. 
17),  and  thus  stumble  at  the  rock  of  offence.  For 
human  nature,  even  if  it  had  remained  in  that  integrity 
in  which  it  was  created,  could  by  no  means  have  served 
its  own  Creator  without  His  aid.  Since  then,  without 
God's  grace  it  could  not  keep  the  safety  it  had  re- 
ceived, how  can  it  without  God's  grace  repair  what  it 
has  lost?"  With  this  profound  view  of  the  Divine  im- 
manence, and  of  the  necessity  of  His  moving  grace  in 
all  the  acts  of  all  His  creatures,  as  over  against  the 
heathen-deistic  view  of  Pelagius,  Augustine  touched 
in  reality  the  deepest  point  in  the  whole  controversy, 
and  illustrated  the  essential  harmony  of  all  truth.1 

The  sharpest  period  of  the  whole  conflict  was  now 
drawing  on."  Innocent's  death  brought  Zosimus  to 
the  chair  of  the  Roman  See,  and  the  efforts  which  he 

1  Compare  also  Innocent's  letter  {Epistle  181)  to  the  Carthaginian 
Council,  chap.  4,  which  also  Neander,  History  of  the  Christian 
Church,  E.  T.,  ii.  646,  quotes  in  this  connection,  as  showing  that 
Innocent  ' '  perceived  that  this  dispute  was  connected  with  a  different 
way  of  regarding  the  relation  of  God's  providence  to  creation."  As 
if  Augustine  did  not  see  this  too  ! 

2  The  book  addressed  to  Dardanus,  in  which  the  Pelagians  are  con- 
futed, but  not  named,  belongs  about  at  this  time.  Compare  Retrac- 
tations, ii.  49.  * 


66     AUGUSTINE  AND   THE  PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY. 

made  to  re-instate  Pelagius  and  Coelestius  now  began 
(September,  417).  How  little  the  Africans  were  likely 
to  yield  to  his  remarkable  demands,  may  be  seen  from 
a  sermon1  which  Augustine  preached  on  the  23d  of 
September,  while  Zosimus'  letter  (written  on  the  21st 
of  September)  was  on  its  way  to  Africa.  The  preacher 
took  his  text  from  John  vi.  54-66.  "We  hear  here," 
he  said,  ' '  the  true  master,  the  divine  Redeemer,  the 
human  Saviour,  commending  to  us  our  ransom,  His 
blood.  He  calls  His  body  food,  and  His  blood  drink  ; 
and,  in  commending  such  food  and  drink,  He  says, 
'  Except  you  eat  My  flesh,  and  drink  My  blood,  ye 
shall  have  no  life  in  you.'  What,  then,  is  this  eating 
and  drinking,  but  to  live?  Eat  life,  drink  life;  you 
shall  have  life,  and  life  is  whole.  This  will  come, — 
that  is,  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  will  be  life  to 
every  one, — if  what  is  taken  visibly  in  the  sacrament  is 
in  real  truth  spiritually  eaten  and  spiritually  drunk. 
But  that  He  might  teach  us  that  even  to  believe  in 
Him  is  of  gift,  not  of  merit,  He  said,  '  No  one  comes 
to  Me,  except  the  Father  who  sent  Me  draw  him.' 
Draw  him,  not  lead  him.  This  violence  is  done  to  the 
heart,  not  the  flesh.  Why  do  you  marvel  ?  Believe, 
and  you  come  ;  love,  and  you  are  drawn.  Think  not 
that  this  is  harsh  and  injurious  violence  ;  it  is  soft,  it 
is  sweet  ;  it  is  sweetness  itself  that  draws  you.  Is  not 
the  sheep  drawn  when  the  succulent  herbage  is  shown 
to  him  ?  And  I  think  that  there  is  no  compulsion  of 
the  body,  but  an  assembling  of  the  desires.  So,  too, 
do  you  come  to  Christ  ;  wish  not  to  plan  a  long  jour- 
ney,— when  you  believe,  then  you  come.  For  to  Him 
who  is  everywhere,  one  comes  by  loving,  not  by  tak- 
ing a  voyage.  No  doubt,  if  you  come  not,  it  is  your 
work  ;  but  if  you  come,  it  is  God's  work.  And  even 
after  you  have  come  and  are  walking  in  the  right 
way,  become  not  proud,  lest  jou  perish  from  it  : 
'  happy  are  those  that  confide  in  Him,'  not  in  them- 
selves, but  in  Him.  We  are  saved  by  grace,  not  of  our- 
selves :  it  is  the  gift  of  God.     Why  do  I  continually 

1  Sermon  131,  preached  at  Carthage. 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN    THE   CONTROVERSY.       67 

say  this  to  you  ?  It  is  because  there  are  men  who  are 
ungrateful  to  grace  and  attribute  much  to  unaided 
and  wounded  nature.  It  is  true  that  man  received 
great  powers  of  free  will  at  his  creation  ;  but  he  lost 
them  by  sinning.  He  has  fallen  into  death  ;  he  has 
been  made  weak  ;  he  has  been  left  half  dead  in  the 
way,  by  robbers  ;  the  good  Samaritan  has  lifted  him 
up  upon  his  ass  and  borne  him  to  the  inn.  Why 
should  we  boast  ?  But  I  am  told  that  it  is  enough  that 
sins  are  remitted  in  baptism.  But  does  the  removal 
of  sin  take  away  weakness  too  ?  What  !  will  you  not 
see  that  after  pouring  the  oil  and  the  wine  into  the 
wounds  of  the  man  left  half  dead  by  the  robbers,  he 
must  still  go  to  the  inn  where  his  weakness  may  be 
healed  ?  Nay,  so  long  as  we  are  in  this  life  we  bear  a 
fragile  body  ;  it  is  only  after  we  are  redeemed  from 
corruption  that  we  shall  find  no  sin  and  receive  the 
crown  of  righteousness.  Grace,  that  was  hidden  in 
the  Old  Testament,  is  now  manifest  to  the  whole 
world.  Even  though  the  Jew  ma}'  be  ignorant  of  it, 
why  should  Christians  be  enemies  of  grace  ?  why  pre- 
sumptuous of  themselves  ?  why  ungrateful  to  grace  ? 
For,  why  did  Christ  come  ?  Was  not  nature  already 
here, — that  very  nature  by  the  praise  of  which  you  are 
beguiled  ?  Was  not  the  law  here  ?  But  the  apostle 
says,  '  If  righteousness  is  of  the  law,  then  is  Christ 
dead  in  vain.'  What  the  apostle  says  of  the  law,  that 
we  say  to  these  men  about  nature  :  if  righteousness  is 
by  nature,  then  Christ  is  dead  in  vain.  What  then 
was  said  of  the  Jews,  this  we  see  repeated  in  these 
men.  They  have  a  zeal  for  God  :  I  bear  them  witness 
that  they  have  a  zeal  for  God  :  but  not  according  to 
knowledge.  For,  being  ignorant  of  God's  righteous- 
ness, and  wishing  to  establish  their  own,  they  are  not 
subject  to  the  righteousness  of  God.  My  brethren, 
share  my  compassion.  Where  you  find  such  men, 
wish  no  concealment  ;  let  there  be  no  perverse  pity  in 
you  :  where  you  find  them,  wish  no  concealment  at 
all.  Contradict  and  refute,  resist,  or  persuade  them 
to  us.  For  already  two  councils  have,  in  this  cause, 
sent  letters  to  the  Apostolic  See,  whence  also  rescripts 


68     AUGUSTINE  AND  THE  PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY. 

have  come  back.  The  cause  is  ended  :  would  that 
the  error  might  some  day  end  !  Therefore  we  admon- 
ish so  that  they  may  take  notice,  we  teach  so  that  they 
may  be  instructed,  we  pray  so  that  their  way  may 
be  changed." 

Here  is  certainly  tenderness  to  the  persons  of  the 
teachers  of  error,  readiness  to  forgive,  and  readiness 
to  go  all  proper  lengths  in  recovering  them  to  the 
truth.  But  here  is  also  absolute  firmness  as  to  the 
truth  itself,  and  a  manifesto  as  to  policy.  Certainly, 
on  the  lines  of  the  policy  here  indicated,  the  Africans 
fought  out  the  coming  campaign.  They  met  in  coun- 
cil at  the  end  of  this  year,  or  early  in  the  next  (418), 
and  formally  replied  to  Zosimus  that  the  cause  had 
been  tried,  and  was  finished  ;  and  that  the  sentence 
that  had  been  already  pronounced  against  Pelagius 
and  Coelestius  should  remain  in  force  until  they  should 
unequivocally  acknowledge  that  "  we  are  aided  by  the 
grace  of  God  through  Christ,  not  only  to  know,  but  to 
do,  what  is  right,  and  that  in  each  single  act  ;  so  that 
without  grace  we  are  unable  to  have,  think,  speak,  or 
do  anything  belonging  to  piety."  As  we  may  see 
Augustine's  hand  in  this,  so,  doubtless,  we  may  recog- 
nize it  in  that  remarkable  piece  of  engineering  which 
crushed  Zosimus'  plans  within  the  next  few  months. 
There  is,  indeed,  no  direct  proof  that  it  was  due  to 
Augustine,  or  to  the  Africans  under  his  leading,  or  to 
the  Africans  at  all,  that  the  State  interfered  in  the 
matter.  It  is  even  in  doubt  whether  the  action  of  the 
Empire  was  put  forth  as  a  rescript,  or  as  a  self-moved 
decree.  But  surely  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  such 
a  coup  de  theatre  could  have  been  prepared  for  Zosimus 
by  chance.  As  it  is  well  known  both  that  Augustine 
believed  in  the  righteousness  of  civil  penalty  for  heresy, 
invoking  it  on  other  occasions  and  defending  and  using 
it  on  this,  and  that  he  had  influential  friends  at  court 
with  whom  he  was  in  correspondence,  it  seems,  on 
internal  grounds,  altogether  probable  that  he  was  the 
dens  ex  mac  hind  who  let  loose  the  thunders  of  ecclesias- 
tical and  civil  enactment  simultaneously  on  the  poor 
Pope's  devoted  head. 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN   THE   CONTROVERSY.       69 

The    Treatises  "  On   the   Grace   of  Christ"   and   "  On 
Original  Sin." 

The  "great  African  Council"  met  at  Carthage  on 
the  1st  of  May,  418.  After  its  decrees  were  issued, 
Augustine  remained  at  Carthage  and  watched  the 
effect  of  the  combination  of  which  he  was  probably  one 
of  the  moving  causes.  He  had  now  an  opportunity  to 
betake  himself  once  more  to  his  pen.  While  still  at 
Carthage,  at  short  notice  and  in  the  midst  of  much 
distraction,  he  wrote  a  large  work  in  two  books,  which 
have  come  down  to  us  under  the  separate  titles  of  On 
the  Grace  of  Christ  and  On  Original  Sin,  at  the  instance 
of  another  of  those  ascetic  families  which  formed  so 
marked  a  feature  in  those  troubled  times.  Pinianus 
and  Melania,  the  daughter  of  Albina,  were  husband 
and  wife,  who,  leaving  Rome  amid  the  wars  with  Alaric, 
had  lived  together  continently  in  Africa  for  some 
time,  but  now  in  Palestine  had  separated,  he  to  become 
head  of  a  monastery,  and  she  an  inmate  of  a  convent. 
While  in  Africa,  they  had  lived  at  Sagaste  under  the 
tutelage  of  Alypius,  and  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  friend- 
ship and  instruction  ot  Augustine.  After  retiring  to 
Bethlehem,  like  the  other  holy  ascetics  whom  he  had 
known  in  Africa,  they  kept  up  their  relations  with 
him.  Like  the  others,  also,  they  became  acquainted 
with  Pelagius  in  Palestine,  and  were  well-nigh  deceived 
by  him.  They  wrote  to  Augustine  that  they  had 
begged  Pelagius  to  condemn  in  writing  all  that  had 
been  alleged  against  him,  and  that  he  had  replied,  in 
the  presence  ot  them  all,  that  "  he  anathematized  the 
man  who  either  thinks  or  says  that  the  grace  of  God 
whereby  Christ  Jesus  came  into  the  world  to  save  sin- 
ners is  not  necessary,  not  only  for  every  hour  and  for 
every  moment,  but  also  for  every  act  of  our  lives," 
and  had  asserted  that  "  those  who  endeavor  to  disannul 
it  are  worthy  of  everlasting  punishment. "'  Moreover, 
they  wrote,  Pelagius  had  read  to  them,  out  ot  his  book 
that  he  had  sent  to  Rome,3  his  assertion  "  that  infants 

1  On  the  Grace  of  Christ,  2. 

s  The  so-called  Cottfession  of  Faith  sent  to  Innocent  after  the  Synod 
of  Diospolis,  which,  however,  arrived  after  Innocent's  death. 


70     AUGUSTINE  AND   THE  PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY. 

ought  to  be  baptized  with  the  same  formula  of  sacramen- 
tal words  as  adults."1  They  expressed  their  delight  at 
hearing  from  Pelagius  these  words,  which  seemed  ex- 
actly what  they  should  wish  to  hear  :  and  yet  they  felt 
impelled  to  consult  Augustine  about  them,  before  they 
fully  committed  themselves  regarding  them.2  It  was 
in  answer  to  this  appeal,  that  the  present  work  was 
written.  Its  two  books  take  up  the  two  points  in 
Pelagius'  asseveration.  The  theme  of  the  first  is,  "  the 
assistance  of  Divine  grace  towards  our  justification, 
by  which  God  co-operates  in  all  things  for  good  to 
those  who  love  Him  and  whom  He  first  loved,  giving 
to  them  that  He  may  receive  from  them."  While  the 
subject  of  the  second  is,  "  the  sin  which  by  one  man 
has  entered  the  world  along  with  death,  and  so  has 
passed  upon  all  men."3 

The  first  book.  On  the  Grace  of  Christ,  begins  by  quot- 
ing and  examining  Pelagius'  anathema  of  all  those  who 
deny  that  grace  is  necessary  for  every  action  (2  sq.). 
Augustine  confesses  that  this  would  deceive  all  who 
were  not  fortified  by  knowledge  of  Pelagius'  writings. 
But  he  asserts  that  in  the  light  of  these  writings  it  is 
clear  that  Pelagius  means  that  grace  is  always  neces- 
sary, only  because  we  need  continually  to  remember 
the  forgiveness  of  our  sins,  the  example  of  Christ,  the 
teaching  of  the  law,  and  the  like.  Then  he  enters 
(4  sq.)  upon  an  examination  of  Pelagius'  scheme  of 
human  faculties,  and  quotes  at  length  the  account  of 
them  as  given  in  his  book,  In  Defence  of  Free  Will. 
Pelagius  distinguishes  between  the  possibilitas  {posse), 
voluntas  (velle)  and  actio  (esse),  and  declares  that  the 
first  only  is  from  God  and  receives  aid  from  God, 
while  the  others  are  entirely  ours  and  in  our  own 
power.  Augustine  opposes  to  this  the  passage  in 
Phil.  ii.  12,  13  (6),  and  then  criticises  (7  sq.)  Pelagius' 
ambiguous  acknowledgment  that  God  is  to  be  praised 
for  man's  good  works  "  because  the  capacity  for  any 
action  on  man's  part  is  from  God,"  which  reduces  all 

1  On  Original  Sin,  1.  2  Ibid.  5. 

3  On  the "Grace  of  Christ,  55. 


A  UG  US  TINE' S  PART  IN    THE    CON  TR  0  VERS  V.       7  I 

grace  to  the  primeval  endowment  of  nature  with 
"  capacity"  {possibilitas,  posse)  and  the  help  afforded  it 
by  the  law  and  teaching-.  Augustine  points  out  the 
difference  between  law  and  grace,  and  the  purpose  of 
the  former  as  a  pedagogue  to  the  latter  (9  sq.),  and 
then  refutes  Pelagius'  further  definition  of  grace  as 
consisting  in  the  promise  of  future  glory  and  the  reve- 
lation of  wisdom,  by  an  appeal  to  Paul's  thorn  in  the 
flesh  and  his  experience  under  its  discipline  (n  sq.). 
Pelagius'  illustrations  of  his  theory  of  natural  faculty 
from  our  senses  are  then  sharply  tested  (16).  The 
criticism  on  the  whole  doctrine  is  then  pressed  (17  sq.), 
that  it  makes  God  equally  sharer  in  our  blame  for  evil 
acts  as  in  our  praise  for  good  ones,  since  if  God  does 
help  and  His  help  is  only  His  gift  to  us  of  ability  to 
act  in  either  part,  then  He  has  equally  helped  to  the 
evil  deeds  as  to  the  good.  The  assertion  that  this 
"capacity  of  either  part"  is  the  fecund  root  of  both 
good  and  evil  is  then  criticised  (19  sq.),  and  opposed 
to  Matt.  vii.  18,  with  the  result  of  establishing  that  we 
must  seek  two  roots  in  our  dispositions  for  so  diverse 
results, — covetousness  for  evil,  and  love  for  good, — 
not  a  single  root  in  nature  for  both.  Man's  "  capac- 
ity," it  is  argued,  is  the  root  of  nothing;  but  it  is 
capable  of  both  good  and  evil  according  to  the  moving 
cause,  which,  in  the  case  of  evil,  is  man-originated, 
while,  in  the  case  of  good,  it  is  from  God  (21).  Next, 
Pelagius'  assertion  that  grace  is  given  according  to 
our  merits  (23  sq.)  is  taken  up  and  examined.  It  is 
shown,  that,  despite  his  anathema,  Pelagius  holds  to 
this  doctrine,  and  in  so  extreme  a  form  as  explicitly  to 
declare  that  man  comes  and  cleaves  to  God  by  his  free- 
dom of  will  alone,  and  without  God's  aid.  He  shows 
that  the  Scriptures  teach  just  the  opposite  (24-26)  ; 
and  then  points  out  how  Pelagius  has  confounded  the 
functions  ot  knowledge  and  love  (27  sq.),  and  how  he 
forgets  that  we  cannot  have  merits  until  we  love  God, 
while  John  certainly  asserts  that  God  loved  us  first 
(1  John  iv.  10).  The  representation  that  what  grace 
does  is  to  render  obedience  easier  (28-30),  and  the  twin 
view  that  prayer  is  only  relatively  necessary,  are  next 


72     AUGUSTINE  AND  THE  PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY. 

criticised  (32).  That  Pelagius  never  acknowledges  real 
grace  is  then  demonstrated  by  a  detailed  examination 
of  all  that  he  had  written  on  the  subject  (31-45).  The 
book  closes  (46-80)  with  a  full  refutation  of  Pelagius' 
appeal  to  Ambrose,  as  if  he  supported  him  ;  and  an 
exhibition  of  Ambrose's  contrary  testimony  as  to  grace 
and  its  necessity. 

The  object  of  the  second  book — On  Original  Sin — is 
to  show,  that,  in  spite  of  Pelagius'  admissions  as  to  the 
baptism  of  infants,  he  yet  denies  that  they  inherit 
original  sin  and  contends  that  they  are  born  free  from 
corruption.  The  book  opens  by  pointing  out  that 
there  is  no  question  as  to  Coelestius'  teaching  in  this 
matter  (2-8).  At  Carthage  he  refused  to  condemn 
those  who  say  that  Adam's  sin  injured  no  one  but  him- 
self and  that  infants  are  born  in  the  same  state  that 
Adam  was  in  before  the  fall  ;  and  he  openly  asserted 
at  Rome  that  there  is  no  sin  ex  traduce.  As  for  Pela- 
gius, he  is  simply  more  cautious  and  mendacious  than 
Coelestius.  He  deceived  the  Council  at  Diospolis,  but 
failed  to  deceive  the  Romans  (5-13),  and,  as  a  matter 
of  fact  (14-18),  teaches  exactly  what  Coelestius  does. 
In  support  of  this  assertion,  Pelagius'  Defence  of  Free 
Will  is  quoted,  wherein  he  asserts  that  we  are  born 
neither  good  nor  bad  "  but  with  a  capacity  for  either," 
and  "  as  without  virtue,  so  without  vice  ;  and  that  pre- 
vious to  the  action  of  our  own  proper  will,  that  alone  is 
in  man  which  God  has  formed"  (14).  Augustine  also 
quotes  Pelagius'  explanation  of  his  anathema  against 
those  who  say  Adam's  sin  injured  only  himself,  as 
meaning  that  he  has  injured  man  by  setting  a  bad 
"  example  ;"  and  his  even  more  sinuous  explanation  of 
his  anathema  against  those  who  assert  that  infants  are 
born  in  the  same  condition  that  Adam  was  in  before 
he  fell,  as  meaning  that  they  are  infants  and  he  was  a 
man  !  (16-18).  With  this  introduction  to  them,  Augus- 
tine next  treats  of  Pelagius'  subterfuges  (19-25),  and 
then  animadverts  on  the  importance  of  the  issue  (26-37), 
pointing  out  that  Pelagianism  is  not  a  mere  error  but 
a  deadly  heresy,  and  strikes  at  the  very  centre  of 
Christianity.     A  counter  argument  of  the  Pelagians  is 


AUGUSTINE S  PART  IN    THE    CONTROVERSY.        73 

then  taken  up  (38-45),  "  Does  not  the  doctrine  of  orig- 
inal sin  make  marriage  an  evil  thing?"  No,  says 
Augustine,  marriage  is  ordained  by  God  and  is  good  ; 
but  it  is  a  diseased  good,  and  hence  what  is  born  of  it 
is  a  good  nature  made  by  God,  but  this  good  nature  in 
a  diseased  condition, — the  result  ol  the  Devil's  work. 
Hence,  if  it  be  asked  why  God's  gift  produces  any 
thing  for  the  Devil  to  take  possession  of,  it  is  to  be  an- 
swered that  God  gives  his  gifts  liberally  (Matt.  v.  45), 
and  makes  men  ;  but  the  Devil  makes  these  men  sin- 
ners (46).  Finally,  as  Ambrose  had  been  appealed  to 
in  the  former  book,  so  at  the  end  of  this  it  is  shown 
that  he  openly  proclaimed  the  doctrine  of  original  sin, 
and  here  too,  before  Pelagius,  condemned  Pelagius 
(47  sq.)- 

Sermons  at  Carthage. 

What  Augustine  meant  by  writing  to  Pinianus  and 
his  family  that  he  was  more  oppressed  by  work  at 
Carthage  than  anywhere  else,  may  perhaps  be  illus- 
trated from  his  diligence  in  preaching  while  in  that 
capital.  He  seems  to  have  been  almost  constantly  in 
the  pulpit  during  this  period  "  of  the  sharpest  conflict 
with  them,"  '  preaching  against  the  Pelagians.  There 
is  one  series  of  his  sermons,  of  the  exact  dates  of  which 
we  can  be  pretty  sure,  which  may  be  adverted  to  here. 
This  includes  Sermons  151  and  152,  preached  early  in 
October,  418  ;  Sermon  155  on  October  14,  156  on  Oc- 
tober 17,  and  26  on  October  18.  They  thus  follow  one 
another  almost  with  the  regularity  of  the  days.  The  first 
was  based  on  Rom.  vii.  15-25.  Augustine  declares  this 
text  to  contain  dangerous  words  if  it  is  not  properly 
understood  ;  for  men  are  prone  to  sin,  and  when  they 
hear  the  apostle  so  speaking  they  do  evil  and  think 
they  are  like  him.  They  are  meant  to  teach  us,  how- 
ever, that  the  life  of  the  just  in  this  body  is  a  war,  not 
yet  a  triumph  :  the  triumph  will  come  only  when  death 
is  swallowed  up  in  victory.  It  would,  no  doubt,  be 
better  not  to  have  an  enemy  than  even  to  conquer.     It 

1  On  the  Gift  of  Perseverance,  55. 


74    AUG  US  TINE  A  ND  THE  TELA  GIA  N  CON  TR  0  VERS  Y. 

would  be  better  not  to  have  evil  desires.  But  we  have 
them.  Nevertheless,  let  us  not  follow  after  them.  If 
they  rebel  against  us,  let  us  rebel  against  them  ;  if  they 
fight,  let  us  fight  ;  if  they  besiege,  let  us  besiege  :  let 
us  look  only  to  this,  that  they  do  not  conquer.  With 
some  evil  desires  we  are  born  :  others  we  make  by  bad 
habit.  It  is  on  account  of  those  with  which  we  are 
born  that  infants  are  baptized — that  they  may  be  freed 
from  the  guilt  of  inheritance,  not  from  any  evil  of  cus- 
tom, which,  of  course,  they  have  not.  And  it  is  on 
account  of  these,  too,  that  our  war  must  be  endless  : 
the  concupiscence  with  which  we  are  born  cannot  be 
done  away  as  long  as  we  live  ;  it  may  be  diminished, 
but  not  done  away.  Neither  can  the  law  free  us,  for 
it  only  reveals  the  sin  to  our  fuller  apprehension. 
Where,  then,  is  hope,  save  in  the  superabundance  of 
grace  ? 

The  next  sermon  (152)  takes  up  the  words  in  Rom. 
viii.  1-4,  and  points  out  that  the  inward  aid  of  the 
Spirit  brings  all  the  help  we  need.  ' '  We,  like  farmers 
in  the  field,  work  from  without  :  but,  if  there  were  no 
one  who  worked  from  within,  the  seed  would  not  take 
root  in  the  ground,  nor  would  the  sprout  arise  in  the 
field,  nor  would  the  shoot  grow  strong  and  become  a 
tree,  nor  would  branches  and  fruit  and  leaves  be  pro- 
duced. Therefore  the  apostle  distinguishes  between 
the  work  of  the  workmen  and  the  work  of  the  Creator 
(1  Cor.  iii.  6,  7).  If  God  give  not  the  increase,  empty 
is  this  sound  within  your  ears  ;  but  if  He  gives,  it 
avails  somewhat  that  we  plant  and  water,  and  our  labor 
is  not  in  vain."  He  then  applies  this  to  the  individual 
striving  against  his  lusts  ;  warns  against  Manichean 
error  ;  and  distinguishes  between  the  three  laws, — the 
law  of  sin,  the  law  of  faith,  and  the  law  of  deeds, — de- 
fending the  last,  the  law  of  Moses,  against  the  Mani- 
cheans.  Then  he  comes  to  the  words  of  the  text,  and 
explains  its  chief  phrases,  closing  thus  :  "  What  else 
do  we  read  here  than  that  Christ  is  a  sacrifice  for 
sin  ?  .  .  .  Behold  by  what  '  sin  '  he  condemned  sin  :  by 
the  sacrifice  which  he  made  for  sins,  he  condemned  sin. 
This  is  the  law  of  the  Spirit  of  life  which  has  freed  you 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN   THE   CONTROVERSY.        75 

from  the  law  of  sin  and  death.  For  that  other  law, 
the  law  of  the  letter,  the  laAv  that  commands,  is  indeed 
good  ;  '  the  commandment  is  holy  and  just  and  good  :  ' 
but  '  it  was  weak  through  the  flesh,'  and  what  it  com- 
manded it  could  not  bring  about  in  us.  Therefore 
there  is  one  law,  as  I  began  by  saying,  that  reveals  sin 
to  you,  and  another  that  takes  it  away  :  the  law  of 
the  letter  reveals  sin,  the  law  of  grace  takes  it  away." 
Sermon  155  covers  the  same  ground,  and  more,  taking 
the  broader  text,  Rom.  viii.  1-11,  and  fully  developing 
its  teaching,  especially  as  discriminating  between  the 
law  of  sin  and  the  law  of  Moses  and  the  law  of  faith  ;  the 
law  of  Moses  being  the  holy  law  of  God  written  with 
His  finger  on  the  tables  of  stone,  while  the  law  of  the 
Spirit  of  life  is  nothing  other  than  the  same  law  writ- 
ten in  the  heart,  as  the  prophet  (Jer.  xxx.  1,  33)  clearly 
declares.  So  written,  it  does  not  terrify  from  without, 
but  soothes  from  within.  Great  care  is  also  taken,  lest 
by  such  phrases  as,  "  walk  in  the  Spirit,  not  in  the 
flesh,"  "  who  shall  deliver  me  from  the  body  of  this 
death  ?"  a  hatred  of  the  body  should  be  begotten. 
"  Thus  you  shall  be  freed  from  the  body  of  this  death, 
not  by  having  no  body,  but  by  having  another  one  and 
dying  no  more.  If,  indeed,  he  had  not  added,  '  of  this 
death,'  perchance  an  error  might  have  been  suggested 
to  the  human  mind,  and  it  might  have  been  said,  '  You 
see  that  God  does  not  wish  us  to  have  a  body.'  But 
He  says,  '  the  body  of  this  death.'  Take  away  death, 
and  the  body  is  good.  Let  our  last  enemy,  death,  be 
taken  away,  and  my  dear  flesh  will  be  mine  for  eter- 
nity. For  no  one  can  ever  '  hate  his  own  flesh.'  Al- 
though the  '  spirit  lusts  against  the  flesh  and  the  flesh 
against  the  spirit,'  although  there  is  now  a  strife  in  this 
house,  yet  the  husband  is  seeking  by  his  strife  not  the 
ruin  of,  but  concord  with,  his  wife.  Far  be  it,  far  be 
it,  my  brethren,  that  the  spirit  should  hate  the  flesh  in 
lusting  against  it  !  It  hates  the  vices  of  the  flesh  ;  it 
hates  the  wisdom  of  the  flesh  ;  it  hates  the  contention 
of  death.  This  corruption  shall  put  on  incorruption, — 
this  mortal  shall  put  on  immortality  ;  it  is  sown  a  natu- 
ral body — it  shall  rise  a  spiritual  body  ;  and  you  shall 


7 6     A  UGUSTINE  AND  THE  PELA GIAN  CONTRO  VERS  Y. 

see  full  and  perfect  concord, — you  shall  see  the  crea- 
ture praise  the  Creator."  One  of  the  special  interests 
of  such  passages  is  to  show,  that,  even  at  this  early 
date,  Augustine  was  careful  to  guard  his  hearers  from 
Manichean  error  while  proclaiming  original  sin.  One 
of  the  sermons  which,  probably,  was  preached  about 
this  time  (153),  is  even  entitled,  "  Against  the  Mani- 
cheans  openly,  but  tacitly  against  the  Pelagians,"  and 
bears  witness  to  the  early  development  of  the  method 
that  he  was  somewhat  later  to  use  effectively  against 
Julian's  charges  of  Manicheanism  against  the  Catho- 
lics.1 

Three  days  afterwards,  Augustine  preached  on  the 
next  few  verses,  Rom.  viii.  12-17,  but  can  scarcely  be 
said  to  have  risen  to  the  height  of  its  great  argument. 
The  greater  part  of  the  sermon  is  occupied  with  a  dis- 
cussion of  the  law,  why  it  was  given,  how  it  is  legiti- 
mately used,  and  its  usefulness  as  a  pedagogue  to  bring 
us  to  Christ.  It  then  passes  on  to  speak  of  the  need  ol 
a  mediator  ;  and  then,  of  what  it  is  to  live  according  to 
the  flesh,  which  includes  living  according  to  merely 
human  nature,  and  the  need  of  mortifying  the  flesh  in 
this  world.  All  this,  of  course,  gave  full  opportunity 
for  opposing  the  leading  Pelagian  errors  ;  and  the  ser- 
mon is  brought  to  a  close  by  a  direct  polemic  against 
their  assertion  that  the  function  of  grace  is  only  to 
make  it  more  easy  to  do  what  is  right.  "  With  the  sail 
more  easily,  with  the  oar  with  more  difficulty  :  never- 
theless even  with  the  oar  we  can  go.  On  a  beast  more 
easily,  on  foot  with  more  difficulty  :  nevertheless  prog- 
ress can  be  made  on  foot.  It  is  not  true  !  For  the 
true  Master  who  flatters  no  one,  who  deceives  no  one, — 
the  truthful  Teacher  and  very  Saviour  to  whom  this 
very  grievous  schoolmaster  has  led  us, — when  he  was 
speaking  about  good  works,  i.e.,  about  the  fruits  of  the 
twigs  and  branches,  did  not  say,  '  Without  me,  indeed, 
you  can  do  something,  but  you  will  do  it  more  easily 
with  me  ;  '  He  did   not  say,  '  You  can  produce  your 

1  Compare  below.  Neander,  in  the  second  volume  (E.  T.)  of  his 
History  of  the  Christian  Church,  discusses  the  matter  in  a  very  fair 
spirit. 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN   THE   CONTROVERSY.        77 

fruit  without  me,  but  more  richly  with  me.'  He  did 
not  say  this  !  Read  what  He  said  :  it  is  the  holy  gos- 
pel,— bow  the  proud  necks  !  Augustine  does  not  say 
this  :  the  Lord  says  it.  What  says  the  Lord  ?  '  With- 
out me  you  can  do  nothing  !  '  " 

On  the  very  next  day  he  was  again  in  the  pulpit,  and 
taking  for  his  text  chiefly  the  ninety-fifth  Psalm.1  He 
began  by  quoting  the  sixth  verse,  and  laying  stress  on 
the  words  "  Our  Maker."  'No  Christian,'  he  said, 
'  doubted  that  God  had  made  him,  and  that  in  such  a 
sense  that  God  created  not  only  the  first  man,  from 
whom  all  have  descended,  but  that  God  to-day  creates 
every  man, — as  He  said  to  one  of  His  saints,  "  Before 
that  I  formed  thee  in  the  womb,  I  knew  thee."  At 
first  He  created  man  apart  from  man  ;  now  He  creates 
man  from  man  :  nevetheless,  whether  man  apart  from 
man,  or  man  from  man,  "it  is  He  that  made  us,  and 
not  we  ourselves."  Nor  has  He  made  us  and  then  de- 
serted us  ;  He  has  not  cared  to  make  us,  and  not  cared 
to  keep  us.  Will  He  who  made  us  without  being 
asked,  desert  us  when  He  is  besought?  But  is  it  not 
just  as  foolish  to  say,  as  some  say  or  are  ready  to  say, 
that  God  made  them  men,  but  they  make  themselves 
righteous  ?  Why,  then,  do  we  pray  to  God  to  make 
us  righteous  ?  The  first  man  was  created  in  a  nature 
that  was  without  fault  or  flaw.  He  was  made  right- 
eous :  he  did  not  make  himself  righteous  ;  what  he  did 
for  himself  was  to  fall  and  break  his  righteousness. 
This  God  did  not  do  :  He  permitted  it,  as  if  He  had 
said,  "  Let  him  desert  Me  ;  let  him  find  himself  ;  and 
let  his  misery  prove  that  he  has  no  ability  without 
Me."  In  this  way  God  wished  to  show  man  what 
free  will  was  worth  without  God.  O  evil  free  will 
without  God  !  Behold,  man  was  made  good  ;  and 
by  free  will  man  was  made  evil  !  When  will  the 
evil  man  make  himself  good  by  free  will  ?  When 
good,  he  was  not  able  to  keep  himself  good  ;  and 
now  that  he  is  evil,  is  he  to  make  himself  good  ?  Nay, 
behold,    He   that  made  us    has  also   made   us   "  His 

1  Sermon  26. 


I 


78    A  UGUSTINE  AND  THE  PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY. 

people"  (Ps.  xcv.  7).  This  is  a  distinguishing  gift. 
Nature  is  common  to  all,  but  grace  is  not.  It  is  not  to 
be  confounded  with  nature  ;  but  if  it  were,  it  would 
still  be  gratuitous.  For  certainly  no  man,  before  he 
existed,  deserved  to  come  into  existence.  And  yet 
God  has  made  him,  and  that  not  like  the  beasts  or  a 
stock  or  a  stone,  but  in  His  own  image.  Who  has 
iven  this  benefit  ?  He  gave  it  who  was  in  existence  : 
le  received  it  who  was  not.  And  only  He  could  do 
this,  who  calls  the  things  that  are  not  as  though  they 
were  :  of  whom  the  apostle  says  that  "  He  chose  us 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world."  We  have  been 
made  in  this  world,  and  yet  the  world  was  not  when 
we  were  chosen.  Ineffable  !  wonderful  !  They  are 
chosen  who  are  not  :  neither  does  He  err  in  choosing 
nor  choose  in  vain.  He  chooses,  and  has  elect  whom 
He  is  to  create  to  be  chosen  :  He  has  them  in  Himself, 
not  indeed  in  His  nature,  but  in  His  prescience.  Let 
us  not,  then,  glory  in  ourselves,  or  dispute  against 
grace.  If  we  are  men,  He  made  us.  If  we  are  be- 
lievers, He  made  us  this  too.  He  who  sent  the  Lamb 
to  be  slain  has,  out  of  wolves,  made  us  sheep.  This  is 
grace.  And  it  is  an  even  greater  grace  than  that 
grace  of  nature  by  which  we  were  all  made  men.'  "  1 
am  continually  endeavoring  to  discuss  such  things 
as  these,"  said  the  preacher,  "against  a  new  heresy 
which  is  attempting  to  rise  ;  because  1  wish  you  to  be 
fixed  in  the  good,  untouched  by  the  evil.  .  .  .  For, 
disputing  against  grace  in  favor  of  free  will,  they  be- 
came an  offence  to  pious  and  catholic  ears.  They 
began  to  create  horror  ;  they  began  to  be  avoided  as  a 
fixed  pest  ;  it  began  to  be  said  of  them,  that  they  argued 
against  grace.  And  they  found  such  a  device  as 
this  :  .  .  .  '  Because  I  defend  man's  tree  will  and  say 
that  free  will  is  sufficient  in  order  that  I  may  be  right- 
eous,' says  one,  '  I  do  not  say  that  it  is  without  the 
grace  of  God.'  The  ears  of  the  pious  are  pricked  up, 
and  he  who  hears  this  already  begins  to  rejoice  : 
4  Thanks  be  to  God  !  He  does  not  defend  free  will  with- 
out the  grace  of  God  !  There  is  free  will,  but  it  avails 
nothing  without  the  grace  of  God.'     If,  then,  they  do 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN    THE    CONTROVERSY.       79 

not  defend  tree  will  without  the  grace  of  God,  what 
evil  do  the)'  say  ?  Expound  to  us,  O  teacher,  what 
grace  you  mean?  '  When  I  say,'  he  says,  '  the  free 
will  of  man,  you  observe  that  I  say  "  of  man"?' 
What  then  ?  '  Who  created  man  ?  '  God.  '  Who  gave 
him  free  will  ?  '  God.  '  If,  then,  God  created  man, 
and  God  gave  man  free  will,  whatever  man  is  able  to 
do  by  free  will,  to  whose  grace  does  he  owe  it,  except 
to  His  who  made  him  with  free  will  ?  '  And  this  is 
what  they  think  they  say  so  acutely  !  You  see,  never- 
theless, my  brethren,  how  they  preach  that  general 
grace  by  which  we  were  created  and  by  which  we  are 
men  ;  and,  of  course,  we  are  men  in  common  with  the  un- 
godly, and  are  Christians  apart  from  them.  It  is  this 
grace  by  which  we  are  Christians,  that  we  wish  them 
to  preach,  this  that  we  wish  them  to  acknowledge,  this 
that  we  wish, — of  which  the  apostle  says,  '  I  do  not 
make  void  the  grace  of  God,  for  if  righteousness  is  by 
the  law,  Christ  is  dead  in  vain.'  "  Then  the  true  func- 
tion of  the  law  was  explained  as  a  revealer  of  our  sin- 
fulness and  a  pedagogue  to  lead  us  to  Christ  :  the  Mani- 
chean  depreciation  of  the  Old-Testament  law  was 
attacked,  but  its  insufficiency  for  salvation  was  pointed 
out  ;  and  so  his  hearers  were  brought  back  to  the 
necessity  of  grace,  which  is  illustrated  from  the  story 
of  the  raising  of  the  dead  child  in  2  Kings  iv.  18-37: 
the  dead  child  being  Adam  ;  the  ineffective  staff  (by 
which  we  ought  to  walk),  the  law  ;  but  the  living 
prophet,  Christ  with  his  grace,  which  we  must  preach. 
"  The  prophetic  staff  was  not  enough  for  the  dead 
boy  :  would  dead  nature  itself  have  been  enough  ? 
Even  this  by  which  we  are  made,  although  we  no- 
where read  of  it  under  this  name,  we  nevertheless,  be- 
cause it  is  given  gratuitously,  confess  to  be  grace.  But 
we  show  to  you  a  greater  grace  than  this,  by  which 
we  are  Christians.  .  .  .  This  is  the  grace  by  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord  :  it  was  He  that  made  us, — both  be- 
fore we  were  at  all  it  was  He  that  made  us,  and  now, 
after  we  are  made,  it  is  He  that  has  made  us  all  right- 
eous,— and  not  we  ourselves."  There  was  but  one 
mass  of  perdition  from  Adam,  to  which  nothing  was 


So    A  UGUSTINE  AND  THE  PELA GIAN  CON TRO  VERS  Y. 

due  but  punishment ;  and  from  that  mass  vessels  have 
been  made  unto  honor.  "  Rejoice  because  you  have 
escaped  ;  you  have  escaped  the  death  that  was  due, — 
you  have  received  the  life  that  was  not  due.  '  But,' 
you  ask,  '  why  did  He  make  me  unto  honor,  and  an- 
other unto  dishonor  ?  '  Will  you  who  will  not  hear 
the  apostle  saying,  '  O  man,  who  art  thou  that  repliest 
against  God  ?  '  hear  Augustine  ?  .  .  .  Do  you  wish  to 
dispute  with  me  ?  Nay,  wonder  with  me,  and  cry  out 
with  me,  '  Oh  the  depth  of  the  riches  !  '  Let  us  both 
be  afraid, — let  us  both  cry  out,  '  Oh  the  depth  of  the 
riches  ! '  Let  us  both  agree  in  fear,  lest  we  perish  in 
error." 

The  Letter  to  Optatus. 

Augustine  was  not  less  busy  with  his  pen,  during 
these  months,  than  with  his  voice.  Quite  a  series  of 
letters  belong  to  the  last  half  of  418,  in  which  he  argues 
to  his  distant  correspondents  on  the  same  themes  which 
he  was  so  iterantly  trying  to  make  clear  to  his  Cartha- 
ginian auditors.  One  of  the  most  interesting  of  these 
was  written  to  a  fellow-bishop,  Optatus,  on  the  origin 
of  the  soul.1  Optatus,  like  Jerome,  had  expressed  him- 
self as  favoring  the  theory  of  a  special  creation  of  each 
at  birth  ;  and  Augustine,  in  this  letter  as  in  the  paper 
sent  to  Jerome,  lays  great  stress  on  so  holding  our 
theories  on  so  obscure  a  matter  as  to  conform  to  the 
indubitable  fact  of  the  transmission  of  sin.  This  fact, 
such  passages  as  1  Cor.  xv.  21  sq.,  Rom.  v.  12  sq., 
make  certain  ;  and  in  stating  this,  Augustine  takes  the 
opportunity  to  outline  the  chief  contents  of  the  catholic 
faith  over  against  the  Pelagian  denial  of  original  sin 
and  grace  :  that  all  are  born  under  the  contagion  of 
death  and  in  the  bond  of  guilt  ;  that  there  is  no  deliv- 
erance except  in  the  one  Mediator,  Christ  Jesus  ;  that 
before  His  coming  men  received  him  as  promised,  now 
as  already  come,  but  with  the  same  faith  ;  that  the  law 
was  not  intended  to  save,  but  to  shut  up  under  sin  and 

1  Epistle  190. 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN    THE    CONTROVERSY.        81 

so  to  force  us  back  upon  the  one  Saviour  ;  and  that  the 
distribution  of  grace  is  sovereign. 

Augustine  pries  into  God's  sovereign  counsels  some- 
what more  freely  here  than  is  usual  with  him.  "  But 
why  those  also  are  created  who,  the  Creator  foreknew, 
would  belong  to  damnation,  not  to  grace,  the  blessed 
apostle  mentions  with  as  much  succinct  brevity  as 
great  authority.  For  he  says  that  God,  '  wishing  to 
show  His  wrath  and  demonstrate  His  power,'  etc.  (Rom. 
ix.  22).  Justly,  however,  would  He  seem  unjust  in 
forming  vessels  of  wrath  for  perdition,  if  the  whole 
mass  from  Adam  were  not  condemned.  That,  there- 
fore, they  are  made  on  birth  vessels  of  anger,  belongs 
to  the  punishment  due  to  them  ;  but  that  they  are 
made  by  re-birth  vessels  of  mercy,  belongs  to  the  grace 
that  is  not  due  to  them.  God,  therefore,  shows  His 
wrath, — not,  of  course,  perturbation  of  mind,  such  as 
is  called  wrath  among  men,  but  a  just  and  fixed  ven- 
geance. .  .  .  He  shows  also  His  power,  by  which  He 
makes  a  good  use  of  evil  men,  and  endows  them  with 
many  natural  and  temporal  goods,  and  bends  their  evil 
to  admonition  and  instruction  of  the  good  by  compari- 
son with  it,  so  that  these  may  learn  from  them  to  give 
thanks  to  God  that  they  have  been  made  to  differ  from 
them,  not  by  their  own  deserts  which  wTere  of  like  kind 
in  the  same  mass,  but  by  His  pity.  .  .  .  But  by  cre- 
ating so  many  to  be  born  who,  He  foreknew,  would 
not  belong  to  His  grace,  so  that  they  are  more  by  an 
incomparable  multitude  than  those  whom  He  deigned 
to  predestinate  as  children  of  the  promise  into  the 
glory  of  His  kingdom,  —  He  wished  to  show  by  this 
very  multitude  of  the  rejected  how  entirely  of  no  mo- 
ment it  is  to  the  just  God  what  is  the  multitude  of 
those  most  justly  condemned.  And  that  hence  also 
those  who  are  redeemed  from  this  condemnation  may 
understand,  that  what  they  see  rendered  to  so  great  a 
part  of  the  mass  was  the  desert  of  the  whole  of  it, — not 
only  of  those  who  add  many  others  to  original  sin,  by 
the  choice  of  an  evil  will,  but  as  well  of  so  many  chil- 
dren who  are  snatched  from  this  life  without  the  grace 
of  the  Mediator,  bound  by  no  bond  except  that  of  orig- 
inal sin  alone." 


82     A  UGUSTIXE  AXD  THE  PELA  GIAN  CONTRO  VERS  Y. 

With  respect  to  the  question  more  immediately  con- 
cerning which  the  letter  was  written,  Augustine  explains 
that  he  is  willing  to  accept  the  opinion  that  souls  are 
created  for  men  as  they  are  born,  if  only  it  can  be 
made  plain  that  it  is  consistent  with  the  original  sin 
that  the  Scriptures  so  clearly  teach.  In  the  paper  sent 
to  Jerome,  the  difficulties  of  creationism  are  sufficiently 
urged  ;  this  letter  is  interesting  on  account  of  its  state- 
ment of  some  of  the  difficulties  of  traducianism  also, — 
thus  evidencing  Augustine's  clear  view  of  the  peculiar 
complexity  of  the  problem,  and  justifying  his  attitude 
of  balance  and  uncertainty  between  the  two  theories. 
'  The  human  understanding,'  he  says,  '  can  scarcely 
comprehend  how  a  soul  arises  from  a  parent's  soul  in 
the  offspring  ;  or  is  transmitted  to  the  offspring  as  a 
candle  is  lighted  from  a  candle  and  thence  another  fire 
comes  into  existence  without  loss  to  the  former  one. 
Is  there  an  incorporeal  seed  for  the  soul,  which  passes, 
by  some  hidden  and  invisible  channel  of  its  own,  from 
the  father  to  the  mother,  when  it  is  conceived  in  the 
woman  ?  Or,  even  more  incredible,  does  it  lie  enfold- 
ed and  hidden  within  the  corporeal  seed  ?  '  He  is  lost 
in  wonder  over  the  question  whether,  when  conception 
does  not  take  place,  the  immortal  seed  of  an  immortal 
soul  perishes  ;  or,  whether  the  immortality  attaches  it- 
self to  it  only  when  it  lives.  He  even  expresses  doubt 
whether  traducianism  will  explain  what  it  is  called  in 
to  explain,  much  better  than  creationism  ;  in  any  case, 
who  denies  that  God  is  the  maker  of  every  soul  ? 
Isaiah  lvii.  16  says,  "  I  have  made  every  breath;" 
and  the  only  question  that  can  arise  is  as  to  method, — 
whether  He  "  makes  every  breath  from  the  one  first 
breath,  just  as  He  makes  every  body  of  man  from  the 
one  first  body  ;  or  whether  He  makes  new  bodies  indeed 
from  the  one  body,  but  new  souls  out  of  nothing." 
Certainly  nothing  but  Scripture  can  determine  such  a 
question  ;  but  where  do  the  Scriptures  speak  unam- 
biguously upon  it  ?  The  passages  to  which  the  crea- 
tionists point  only  affirm  the  admitted  fact  that  God 
makes  the  soul  ;  and  the  traducianists  forget  that  the 
word  "  soul"  in  the  Scriptures  is  ambiguous,  and  can 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN    THE    CONTROVERSY.        33 

mean  "  man,"  and  even  a  "  dead  man."  What  more 
can  be  done,  then,  than  to  assert  what  is  certain,  viz., 
that  sin  is  propagated,  and  leave  what  is  uncertain  in 
the  doubt  in  which  God  has  chosen  to  place  it  ? 

This  letter  was  written  not  long  after  the  issue  of 
Zosimus'  Tractoria,  which  demanded  the  signature  of  all 
to  African  orthodoxy  ;  and  Augustine  sends  Optatus 
"  copies  of  the  recent  letters  which  have  been  sent 
forth  from  the  Roman  See,  whether  specially  to  the 
African  bishops  or  generally  to  all  bishops,"  on  the 
Pelagian  controversy,  "  lest  perchance  they  had  not 
yet  reached"  his  correspondent,  who,  it  is  very  evi- 
dent, he  was  anxious  should  thoroughly  realize  "  that 
the  authors,  or  certainly  the  most  energetic  and  noted 
teachers,"  of  these  new  heresies,  "had  been  con- 
demned in  the  whole  Christian  world  by  the  vigilance 
of  episcopal  councils  aided  by  the  Saviour  who  keeps 
His  Church,  as  well  as  by  two  venerable  overseers  of 
the  Apostolical  See,  Pope  Innocent  and  Pope  Zosimus, 
unless  they  should  show  repentance  by  being  con- 
vinced and  reformed."  To  this  zeal  we  owe  it  that  the 
letter  contains  an  extract  from  Zosimus'  Tractoria,  one 
of  the  two  brief  fragments  of  that  document  that  have 
reached  our  day. 

The  Correspondence  with  Sixtus. 

There  was  another  ecclesiastic  in  Rome,  besides 
Zosimus,  who  was  strongly  suspected  of  favoring  the 
Pelagians.  This  was  the  presbyter  Sixtus,  who  after- 
wards became  Pope  Sixtus  III.  But  when  Zosimus 
issued  his  condemnation  of  Pelagianism,  Sixtus  sent 
also  a  short  letter  to  Africa  addressed  to  Aurelius  of 
Carthage.  This,  though  brief,  spoke  with  consider- 
able vigor  against  the  heresy  which  he  was  commonly 
believed  to  have  before  defended,1  and  which  claimed 
him  as  its  own.2  Some  months  afterwards,  he  sent  an- 
other similar,  but  longer,  letter  to  Augustine  and 
Alypius,  more  fully  expounding  his  rejection  of  ' '  the 

1  See  Epistle  194.  1.  2  Ibid.  191,  1. 


84     A  UG  US  TINE  AND  THE  TELA  GIAN  CONTRO  VERS  Y. 

fatal  dogma"  of  Pelagius,  and  his  acceptance  of  "  that 
grace  of  God  freely  given  by  Him  to  small  and  great, 
to  which  Pelagius'  dogma  was  diametrically  opposed." 
Augustine  was  overjoyed  with  these  developments. 
He  quickly  replied  in  a  short  letter '  in  which  he  ex- 
presses the  delight  he  had  in  learning  from  Sixtus'  own 
hand  that  he  was  not  a  defender  of  Pelagius,  but  a  preach- 
er of  grace.  And  close  upon  the  heels  of  this  he  sent 
another  much  longer  letter,2  in  which  he  discusses  the 
subtler  arguments  of  the  Pelagians  with  an  anxious 
care  that  seems  to  bear  witness  to  his  desire  to  confirm 
and  support  his  correspondent  in  his  new  opinions. 
Both  letters  testify  to  Augustine's  approval  of  the  per- 
secuting measures  which  had  been  instituted  by  the 
Roman  see  in  obedience  to  the  emperor  ;  and  urge  on 
Sixtus  his  duty  not  only  to  bring  the  open  heretics  to 
deserved  punishment,  but  to  track  out  those  who 
spread  their  poison  secretly,  and  even  to  remember 
those  whom  he  had  formerly  heard  announcing  the 
error  before  it  had  been  condemned  and  who  were 
now  silent  through  fear,  and  to  bring  them  either  to 
open  recantation  of  their  former  beliefs,  or  to  punish- 
ment. 

It  is  pleasanter  to  recall  the  dialectic  of  these  letters. 
The  greater  part  of  the  second  is  given  to  a  discussion 
of  the  gratuitousness  of  grace,  which,  just  because 
grace,  is  given  to  no  preceding  merits.  Many  subtle 
objections  to  this  doctrine  were  brought  forward  by 
the  Pelagians.  They  said  that  "free  will  is  taken 
away  if  we  assert  that  man  does  not  have  even  a  good 
will  without  the  aid  of  God  :"  that  we  make  "  God  an 
accepter  of  persons,  it  we  believe  that  without  any 
preceding  merits  He  has  mercy  on  whom  He  will, 
and  whom  He  will  He  calls,  and  whom  He  will 
He  makes  religious  :  "  that  "it  is  unjust,  in  one  and 
the  same  case,  to  deliver  one  and  punish  another  :" 
that,  if  such  a  doctrine  be  preached,  "  men  who  do 
not  wish  to  live  rightly  and  faithfully,  will  excuse 
themselves  by  saying  that  they  have  done  nothing  evil 

1  Epistle  191.  *  Ibid.  194. 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN    THE    CONTROVERSY.        85 

by  living-  ill,  since  they  have  not  received  the  grace  by 
which  they  might  live  well  :"  that  it  is  a  puzzle  "  how 
sin  can  pass  over  to  the  children  of  the  faithful,  when 
it  has  been  remitted  to  the  parents  in  baptism  :"  that 
"  children  respond  truly  by  the  mouth  of  their  sponsors 
that  they  believe  in  remission  of  sins,  but  not  because 
sins  are  remitted  to  them,  but  because  they  believe 
that  sins  are  remitted  in  the  church  or  in  baptism  to 
those  in  whom  they  are  found,  not  to  those  in  whom 
they  do  not  exist;"  and  consequently  they  said  that 
"  they  were  unwilling  that  infants  should  be  so  bap- 
tized unto  remission  of  sins  as  if  this  remission  took 
place  in  them,"  for  (they  contended)  "  they  have  no  sin  ; 
but  they  are  to  be  baptized,  although  without  sin,  with 
the  same  rite  of  baptism  through  which  remission  of 
sins  takes  place  in  any  that  are  sinners."  This  last 
objection  is  especially  interesting,1  because  it  furnishes 
us  with  the  reply  which  the  Pelagians  made  to  the 
argument  that  Augustine  so  strongly  pressed  against 
them  from  the  very  act  and  ritual  of  baptism,  as  imply- 
ing remission  of  sins.2  His  rejoinder  to  it  here  is  to 
point  to  the  other  parts  of  the  same  ritual,  and  to  ask 
why,  then,  infants  are  exorcised  and  exsufflated  in  bap- 
tism. "For,  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  this  is  done 
fictitiously,  if  the  Devil  does  not  rule  over  them  ;  but 
if  he  rules  over  them,  and  they  are  therefore  not  falsely 
exorcised  and  exsufflated,  why  does  that  Prince  of 
sinners  rule  over  them  except  because  of  sin  ?" 

On  the  fundamental  matter  of  the  gratuitousness  of 
grace,  this  letter  is  very  explicit.  "  It  we  seek  for  the 
deserving  of  hardening,  we  shall  find  it.  .  .  .  But  if 
we  seek  for  the  deserving  of  pity,  we  shall  not  find  it  ; 
for  there  is  none,  lest  grace  be  made  a  vanity  if  it  is 
not  given  gratis  but  rendered  to  merits.  But,  should 
we  say  that  faith  preceded  and  in  it  there  is  desert  of 
grace,  what  desert  did  man  have  before  faith  that  he 
should  receive  faith  ?  For,  what  did  he  have  that  he 
did  not  receive  ?  and  if  he  received  it,  why  does  he 

1  It  appears  to  have  been  first  reported  to  Augustine  by  Marius  Mer- 
cator,  in  a  letter  received  at  Carthage.     See  Epistle  193,  3. 

2  As,  for  example,  in  On  the  Merits  and  Remission  of  Sins,  etc.,  i. 


86     A  UG  US  TINE  AND  THE  TELA  GIAN  CONTRO  VERS  Y. 

glory  as  if  he  received  it  not  ?  For  as  man  would  not 
have  wisdom,  understanding,  prudence,  fortitude, 
knowledge,  piety,  fear  of  God,  unless  he  had  received 
(according  to  the  prophet)  the  spirit  of  wisdom  and 
understanding,  of  prudence  and  fortitude,  of  knowl- 
edge and  piety  and  the  fear  of  God  ;  as  he  would  not 
have  justice,  love,  continence,  except  the  spirit  were 
received  of  whom  the  apostle  says,  '  For  you  did  not 
receive  the  spirit  of  fear,  but  of  virtue,  and  love,  and 
continence  :  '  so  he  would  not  have  faith  unless  he  re- 
ceived the  spirit  of  faith  of  whom  the  same  apostle 
says,  '  Having  then  the  same  spirit  of  faith,  according 
to  what  is  written,  "  I  believed  and  therefore  spoke," 
we  too  believe  and  therefore  speak.'  But  that  He  is 
not  received  by  desert,  but  by  His  mercy  who  has 
mercy  on  whom  He  will,  is  manifestly  shown  where  he 
says  of  himself,  '  I  have  obtained  mercy  to  be  faith- 
ful.' "  "  If  we  should  say  that  the  merit  of  prayer 
precedes,  that  the  gift  of  grace  may  follow,  .  .  .  even 
prayer  itself  is  found  among  the  gifts  of  grace"  (Rom. 
viii.  26).  "  It  remains,  then,  that  faith  itself,  whence 
all  righteousness  takes  beginning,  ...  it  remains,  1 
say,  that  even  faith  itself  is  not  to  be  attributed  to  the 
human  will  which  they  extol,  nor  to  any  preceding 
merits,  since  from  it  begin  whatever  good  things  are 
merits  :  but  it  is  to  be  confessed  to  be  the  gratuitous 
gift  of  God,  since  we  consider  it  true  grace,  that  is, 
without  merits,  inasmuch  as  we  read  in  the  same  epis- 
tle, '  God  divides  out  the  measure  of  faith  to  each  ' 
(Rom.  xii.  3).  Now,  good  works  are  done  by  man, 
but  faith  is  wrought  in  man,  and  without  it  these  are 
not  done  by  any  man.  For  all  that  is  not  of  faith  is 
sin"  (Rom.  xiv.  23.) 

Letters  to  Mercator  and  Asellicus. 

By  the  same  messenger  who  carried  this  important 
letter  to  Sixtus,  Augustine  sent  also  a  letter  to  Mer- 
cator,1 an  African  layman  who  was  then  apparently  at 
Rome,  but  who  was  afterwards  (in  429)  to  render  ser- 

1  Epistle  193. 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN    THE    CONTROVERSY.        87 

vice  by  instructing  the  Emperor  Theodosius  as  to  the 
nature  and  history  of  Pelagianism,  and  so  preventing 
the  appeal  of  the  Pelagians  to  him  from  being  granted. 
Now  he  appears  as  an  inquirer.  Augustine,  while  at 
Carthage,  had  received  a  letter  from  him  in  which  he 
had  consulted  him  on  certain  questions  that  the  Pela- 
gians had  raised,  but  in  such  a  manner  as  to  indicate 
his  opposition  to  them.  Press  of  business  had  com- 
pelled the  postponement  of  the  reply  until  this  later 
date.  One  of  the  questions  which  Mercator  had  put 
concerned  the  Pelagian  account  of  infants  sharing  in 
the  one  baptism  unto  remission  of  sins,  which  we  have 
seen  Augustine  answering  when  writing  to  Sixtus. 
In  this  letter  he  replies  :  "  Let  them,  then,  hear  the 
Lord  (John  iii.  36).  Infants,  therefore,  who  are  made 
believers  by  others,  by  whom  they  are  brought  to  bap- 
tism, are,  of  course,  unbelievers  by  others,  if  they  are 
in  the  hands  of  such  as  do  not  believe  that  they  should 
be  brought,  inasmuch  as  they  believe  they  are  nothing 
profited  ;  and  accordingly,  if  they  believe  by  believers 
and  have  eternal  life,  they  are  unbelievers  by  unbe- 
lievers and  shall  not  see  life,  but  the  wrath  of  God 
abideth  on  them.  For  it  is  not  said,  '  it  comes  on  them.' 
but  '  it  abideth  on  them,'  because  it  was  on  them  from 
the  beginning,  and  will  not  be  taken  from  them  ex- 
cept by  the  grace  of  God  through  Jesus  Christ,  our 
Lord.  .  .  .  Therefore,  when  children  are  baptized, 
the  confession  is  made  that  they  are  believers,  and  it 
is  not  to  be  doubted  that  those  who  are  not  believers 
are  condemned  :  let  them,  then,  dare  to  say  now,  if 
they  can,  that  they  contract  no  evil  from  their  origin 
to  be  condemned  by  the  just  God,  and  have  no  con- 
tagion of  sin."  The  other  matter  on  which  Mercator 
sought  light  concerned  the  statement  that  universal 
death  proved  universal  sin  :'  he  reported  that  the  Pela- 
gians replied  that  not  even  death  was  universal — that 
Enoch,  for  instance,  and  Elijah,  had  not  died.  Augus- 
tine adds  those  who  are  to  be  found  living  at  the  sec- 
ond advent,  who  are  not  to  die  but  to  be  "  changed  ;" 

1  Compare  On  Dtilcitius'  Eight  Questions,  3. 


88     A  UGUSTINE  AND  THE  PELAGIAN  CONTRO  VERS  Y. 

and  replies  that  Rom.  v.  12  is  perfectly  explicit  that 
there  is  no  death  in  the  world  except  that  which  comes 
from  sin,  and  that  God  is  a  Saviour,  and  we  cannot  at 
all  ' '  deny  that  He  is  able  to  do  that,  now,  in  any  that 
he  wishes,  without  death,  which  we  undoubtingly  be- 
lieve is  to  be  done  in  so  many  after  death."  He  adds 
that  the  difficult  question  is  not  why  Enoch  and  Elijah 
did  not  die,  if  death  is  the  punishment  of  sin  ;  but  why, 
such  being  the  case,  the  justified  ever  die  ;  and  he  re- 
fers his  correspondent  to  his  book  On  the  Baptism  of 
Infants'  for  a  resolution  of  this  greater  difficulty. 

It  was  probably  at  the  very  end  of  418  that  Augus- 
tine wrote  a  letter  of  some  length2  to  Asellicus,  in  re- 
ply to  one  which  he  had  written,  on  "  avoiding  the  de- 
ception of  Judaism,"  to  the  primate  of  the  Bizacene 
province,  and  which  that  ecclesiastic  had  sent  to 
Augustine  for  answering.  He  discusses  in  this  the 
law  of  the  Old  Testament.  He  opens  by  pointing  out 
that  the  apostle  forbids  Christians  to  Judaize  (Gal.  ii. 
14-16),  and  explains  that  it  is  not  merely  the  ceremonial 
law  that  we  may  not  depend  upon,  "  but  also  what  is 
said  in  the  law,  '  Thou  shalt  not  covet  '  (which  no  one, 
of  course,  doubts  is  to  be  said  to  Christians  too),  does 
not  justify  man,  except  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  and 
the  grace  of  God  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord." 
He  then  expounds  the  use  of  the  law  :  "  This,  then,  is 
the  usefulness  of  the  law  :  that  it  shows  man  to  him- 
self, so  that  he  may  know  his  weakness,  and  see  how, 
by  the  prohibition,  carnal  concupiscence  is  rather  in- 
creased than  healed.  .  .  .  The  use  of  the  law  is,  thus, 
to  convince  man  of  his  weakness,  and  force  him  to  im- 
plore the  medicine  of  grace  that  is  in  Christ. "  "  Since 
these  things  are  so,"  he  adds,  "  those  who  rejoice  that 
they  are  Israelites  after  the  flesh  and  glory  in  the  law 
apart  from  the  grace  of  Christ,  these  are  those  con- 
cerning whom  the  apostle  said  that  '  being  ignorant  ol 
God's  righteousness,  and  wishing  to  establish  their 
own,   they  are  not  subject  to  God's  righteousness  ;  ' 

1  That  is,  On  the  Merits  and  Remission  of  Sifts,  etc.,  ii.  30  sq. 
9  Epistle  196. 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN   THE    CONTROVERSY.        89 

since  he  calls  '  God's  righteousness  '  that  which  is  from 
God  to  man  ;  and  '  their  own,'  what  they  think  that 
the  commandments  suffice  for  them  to  do  without  the 
help  and  gilt  of  Him  who  gave  the  law.  But  they  are 
like  those  who,  while  they  profess  to  be  Christians,  so 
oppose  the  grace  of  Christ  that  they  suppose  that 
they  fulfil  the  divine  commands  by  human  powers, 
and,  '  wishing  to  establish  their  own,'  are  '  not  subject 
to  the  righteousness  of  God,'  and  so,  not  indeed  in 
name,  but  yet  in  error,  Judaize.  This  sort  of  men 
found  heads  for  themselves  in  Pelagius  and  Ccelestius. 
the  most  acute  asserters  of  this  impiety,  who  by  God's 
recent  judgment,  through  his  diligent  and  faithful  ser- 
vants, have  been  deprived  even  of  catholic  communion, 
and,  on  account  of  an  impenitent  heart,  persist  still  in 
their  condemnation." 

The  First  Book  of  the   Treatise  "  On  Marriage  and  Con- 
cupiscence. 

At  the  beginning  of  419,  a  considerable  work  was 
published  by  Augustine  on  one  of  the  more  remote 
corollaries  which  the  Pelagians  drew  from  his  teach- 
ings. It  had  come  to  his  ears,  that  they  asserted  that 
his  doctrine  condemned  marriage.  "If  only  sinful 
offspring  come  from  marriage,"  they  asked,  "is  not 
marriage  itself  made  a  sinful  thing  ?"  The  book  which 
Augustine  composed  in  answer  to  this  query,  he  sent, 
along  with  an  explanatory  letter,  to  the  Comes  Valerius, 
a  trusted  servant  of  the  Emperor  Honorius  and  one 
of  the  most  steady  opponents  at  court  of  the  Pelagian 
heresy.  Augustine  explains1  why  he  desired  to  ad- 
dress the  book  to  him  :  first,  because  Valerius  was  a 
striking  example  of  those  continent  husbands  of  which 
that  age  furnishes  us  with  many  instances,  and,  there- 
fore, the  discussion  would  have  especial  interest  for 
him  ;  secondly,  because  of  his  eminence  as  an  oppo- 
nent of  Pelagianism  ;  and,  thirdly,  because  Augustine 
had  learned  that  he  had  read  a  Pelagian  document  in 
which  Augustine  was  charged  with  condemning  mar- 

1  On  Marriage  and  Concupiscence,  i.  2. 


90     A  UGUSTINE  AND  THE  PELAGIAN  CONTRO  VERSY. 

riage  by  defending  original  sin.1  The  book  in  question 
is  the  first  book  ol  the  treatise  On  Marriage  and  Con- 
cupiscence. It  is,  naturally,  tinged,  or  rather  stained, 
with  the  prevalent  ascetic  notions  of  the  day.  Its  doc- 
trine is  that  marriage  is  good,  and  that  God  is  the 
maker  of  the  offspring  that  comes  from  it,  although 
now  there  can  be  no  begetting  and  hence  no  birth 
without  sin.  Sin  made  concupiscence,  and  now  con- 
cupiscence perpetuates  sinners.  The  specific  object 
of  the  work,  as  it  states  it  itself,  is  "to  distinguish 
between  the  evil  of  carnal  concupiscence,  from  which 
man  who  is  born  therefrom  contracts  original  sin, 
and  the  good  of  marriage"  (I.  i).  After  the  brief  intro- 
duction, in  which  he  explains  why  he  writes,  and  why 
he  addresses  his  book  to  Valerius  (1-2),  Augustine 
points  out  that  conjugal  chastity,  like  its  higher  sister- 
grace  of  continence,  is  God's  gift.  Thus  copulation, 
but  only  for  the  propagation  of  children,  has  divine 
allowance  (3-5).  Lust,  or  "  shameful  concupiscence," 
however,  he  teaches,  is  not  of  the  essence,  but  only  an 
accident,  of  marriage.  It  did  not  exist  in  Eden,  al- 
though true  marriage  existed  there  ;  but  arose  from, 
and  therefore  only"  after,  sin  (6-7).  Its  addition  to 
marriage  does  not  destroy  the  good  of  marriage  :  it 
only  conditions  the  character  of  the  offspring  (8). 
Hence  it  is  that  the  apostle  allows  marriage,  but  for- 
bids the  "  disease  of  desire"  (1  Thess.  iv.  3-5)  ;  and 
hence  the  Old  Testament  saints  were  even  permitted 
more  than  one  wife,  because,  by  multiplying  wives,  it 
was  not  lust,  but  offspring,  that  was  increased  (9-10). 
Nevertheless,  fecundity  is  not  to  be  thought  the  only 
good  of  marriage  :  true  marriage  can  exist  without 
offspring,  and  even  without  cohabitation  (11-13);  and 
cohabitation  is  now,  under  the  New  Testament,  no 
longer  a  duty  as  it  was  under  the  Old  Testament  (14- 
15),  but  the  apostle  praises  continence  above  it.  We 
must,  then,  distinguish  between  the  goods  of  marriage, 
and  seek  the  best  (16-19).  But  thus  it  follows  that  it 
is  not  due  to  any  inherent  and  necessary  evil  in  mar- 

1  Compare  the  Benedictine  Preface  to  The  Unfinished  Work. 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN    THE    CONTROVERSY.        91 

riage,  but  only  to  the  presence,  now,  of  concupiscence 
in  all  cohabitation,  that  children  are  born  under  sin, 
even  the  children  of  the  regenerate,  just  as  from  the 
seed  of  olives  only  oleasters  grow  (20-24).  And  yet 
again,  concupiscence  is  not  itself  sin  in  the  regener- 
ate ;  it  is  remitted  as  guilt  in  baptism  :  but  it  is  the 
daughter  of  sin,  and  it  is  the  mother  of  sin,  and  in  the 
unregenerate  it  is  itself  sin,  as  to  yield  to  it  is  even  to 
the  regenerate  (25-39).  Finally,  as  so  often,  the  testi- 
mony of  Ambrose  is  appealed  to,  and  it  is  shown  that 
he  too  teaches  that  all  born  from  cohabitation  are  born 
guilty  (40). 

In  this  book,  Augustine  certainly  seems  to  teach 
that  the  bond  of  connection  by  which  Adam's  sin 
is  conveyed  to  his  offspring  is  not  mere  descent,  or 
heredity,  or  mere  inclusion  in  him  in  a  realistic  sense 
as  partakers  of  the  same  numerical  nature,  but  con- 
cupiscence. Without  concupiscence  in  the  act  of  gen- 
eration, the  offspring  would  not  be  a  partaker  of 
Adam's  sin.  This  he  had  taught  also  previously,  as, 
e.g.,  in  the  treatise  On  Original  Sin,  from  which  a  few 
words  may  be  profitably  quoted  as  succinctly  summing 
up  the  teaching  of  this  book  on  the  subject  :  "  It  is, 
then,  manifest,  that  that  must  not  be  laid  to  the  ac- 
count of  marriage,  in  the  absence  of  which  even  mar- 
riage would  still  have  existed.  .  .  .  Such,  however, 
is  the  present  condition  of  mortal  men,  that  the  con- 
nubial intercourse  and  lust  are  at  the  same  time  in 
action.  .  .  .  Hence  it  follows  that  infants,  although 
incapable  of  sinning,  are  yet  not  born  without  the  con- 
tagion of  sin,  .  .  .  not,  indeed,  because  of  what  is  law- 
ful, but  on  account  of  that  which  is  unseemly  :  for, 
from  what  is  lawful,  nature  is  born  ;  from  what  is  un- 
seemly, sin"  (42). 

The   Treatise  "On  the  Sou/  and  its  Origin." 

Towards  the  end  of  the  same  year  (419),  Augustine 
was  led  to  take  up  again  the  vexed  question  of  the 
origin  of  the  soul.     This  he  did  not  only  in  a  new  letter 


92      AUG  US  TINE  A  ND  THE  PEL  A  GIAN  CON  TRO  VERS  Y. 

to  Optatus,1  but  also,  moved  by  the  zeal  of  the  same 
monk,  Renatus,  who  had  formerly  brought  Optatus' 
inquiries  to  his  notice,  in  an  elaborate  treatise  entitled 
On  the  Soul  and  its  Origin,  by  way  of  reply  to  a  rash 
adventure  of  a  young  man  named  Vincentius  Victor, 
who  blamed  him  for  his  uncertainty  on  such  a  sub- 
ject and  attempted  to  determine  all  the  puzzles  of  the 
question,  though,  as  Augustine  insists,  on  assumptions 
that  were  partly  Pelagian  and  parti)7  worse. 

Optatus  had  written  in  the  hope  that  Augustine  had 
heard  by  this  time  from  Jerome,  in  reply  to  the  treatise 
he  had  sent  him  on  this  subject.  Augustine,  in  an- 
swering his  letter,  expresses  his  sorrow  that  he  has  not 
yet  been  thought  by  Jerome  worthy  of  an  answer, 
although  five  years  had  passed  away  since  he  wrote, 
but  his  continued  hope  that  such  an  answer  will  in 
due  time  come.  For  himself,  he  confesses  that  he  has 
not  yet  been  able  to  see  how  the  soul  can  contract  sin 
from  Adam  and  yet  not  itself  be  contracted  from 
Adam  ;  and  he  regrets  that  Optatus,  although  holding 
that  God  creates  each  soul  for  its  birth,  has  not  sent 
him  the  proofs  on  which  he  depends  for  that  opinion, 
nor  met  its  obvious  difficulties.  He  rebukes  Optatus 
for  confounding  the  question  of  whether  God  makes 
the  soul,  with  the  entirely  different  one  of  how  he 
makes  it,  whether  ex  propagine  or  sine  propamine.  No 
one  doubts  that  God  makes  the  soul,  as  no  one  doubts 
that  He  makes  the  body.  But  when  we  consider  how 
He  makes  it,  sobriety  and  vigilance  become  necessary 
lest  we  should  unguardedly  fall  into  the  Pelagian 
heresy.  Augustine  defends  his  attitude  of  uncertainty, 
and  enumerates  the  points  as  to  which  he  has  no 
doubt  :  viz.,  that  the  soul  is  spirit,  not  body  ;  that  it  is 
rational  or  intellectual  ;  that  it  is  not  of  the  nature  of 
God,  but  is  so  far  a  mortal  creature  that  it  is  capable 
of  deterioration  and  of  alienation  from  the  life  of  God, 
and  so  far  immortal  that  after  this  life  it  lives  on  in 
bliss  or  punishment  forever  ;  that  it  was  not  incarnated 
because    of,    or   according   to,   preceding   deserts   ac- 

1  Epistle  202,  bis.     Compare  Epistle  190. 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN    THE    CONTROVERSY.        93 

quired  in  a  previous  existence,  yet  that  it  is  under  the 
curse  of  sin  which  it  derives  from  Adam,  and  there- 
fore in  all  cases  alike  needs  redemption  in  Christ. 

The  whole  subject  of  the  nature  and  origin  of  the 
soul,  however,  is  most  fully  discussed  in  the  four  books 
which  are  gathered  together  under  the  common  title 
of  On  the  Soul  and  its  Origin.  Vincentius  Victor  was 
a  young  layman  who  had  recently  been  converted 
from  the  Rogatian  heresy.  On  being  shown  by  his 
friend  Peter,  a  presbyter,  a  small  work  of  Augustine's 
on  the  origin  of  the  soul,  he  expressed  surprise  that  so 
great  a  man  could  profess  ignorance  on  a  matter  so 
intimate  to  his  very  being  ;  and,  receiving  encourage- 
ment, he  wrote  a  book  for  Peter,  in  which  he  attacked 
and  tried  to  solve  all  the  difficulties  of  the  subject. 
Peter  received  the  work  with  transports  of  delighted 
admiration.  But  Renatus,  happening  that  way,  looked 
upon  it  with  distrust,  and,  finding  that  Augustine  was 
spoken  of  in  it  with  scant  courtesy,  felt  it  his  duty  to 
send  him  a  copy  of  it.  This  he  did  in  the  summer  of 
419.  It  was  probably  not  until  late  in  the  following 
autumn  that  Augustine  found  time  to  take  up  the  mat- 
ter. He  wrote  then  to  Renatus,  to  Peter,  and  two 
books  to  Victor  himself  ;  and  it  is  these  four  books 
together  which  constitute  the  treatise  that  has  come 
down  to  us. 

The  first  book  is  a  letter  to  Renatus,  and  is  intro- 
duced by  an  expression  of  thanks  to  him  for  sending 
Victor's  book,  and  of  kindly  feeling  towards  and  appre- 
ciation for  the  high  qualities  of  Victor  himself  (1-3). 
Then  Victor's  errors  are  pointed  out, — as  to  the  nature 
of  the  soul  (4-9),  including  certain  far-reaching  corol- 
laries that  flow  from  these  (10-15),  and  also  as  to  the 
origin  of  the  soul  (16-30).  The  letter  closes  with  some 
remarks  on  the  danger  of  arguing  from  the  silence  of 
Scripture  (31),  on  the  self-contradictions  of  Victor  (34), 
and  on  the  errors  that  must  be  avoided  in  any  theory 
of  the  origin  of  the  soul  that  hopes  to  be  acceptable. 
These  errors  are  that  souls  become  sinful  by  an  alien 
original  sin,  that  unbaptized  infants  need  no  salvation, 
that  souls  sinned  in  a  previous  state,  and  that  they  are 


94     A  UG  US  TINE  A  ND  THE  PEL  A  GIAN  CON  TRO  VERS  Y. 

condemned  for  sins  which  they  have  not  committed, 
but  would  have  committed  had  they  lived  longer. 

The  second  book  is  a  letter  to  Peter,  warning  him  of 
the  responsibility  that  rests  on  him,  as  Victor's  trusted 
friend  and  a  clergyman,  to  correct  Victor's  errors,  and 
reproving  him  for  the  uninstructed  delight  he  had 
taken  in  Victor's  crudities.  It  opens  by  asking  Peter 
what  was  the  occasion  of  the  great  joy  which  Victor's 
book  brought  him  ?  Could  it  be  that  he  learned  from 
it,  for  the  first  time,  the  old  and  primary  truths  it  con- 
tained (2-3)  ?  Or  was  it  due  to  the  new  errors  that  it 
proclaimed, — seven  of  which  he  enumerates  (4-16)? 
Then,  after  animadverting  on  the  dilemma  in  which 
Victor  stood,  of  either  being  forced  to  withdraw  his 
violent  assertion  of  creationism,  or  else  of  making  God 
unjust  in  His  dealings  with  new  souls  (17),  he  speaks 
of  Victor's  unjustifiable  dogmatism  in  the  matter  (18- 
21),  and  closes  with  severely  solemn  words  to  Peter  on 
his  responsibility  in  the  premises  (22-23). 

In  the  third  and  fourth  books,  which  are  addressed 
to  Victor,  the  polemic,  of  course,  reaches  its  height. 
The  third  book  is  entirely  taken  up  with  pointing  out 
to  Victor,  as  a  lather  to  a  son,  the  errors  into  which 
he  had  fallen,  and  which,  in  accordance  with  his  pro- 
fessions of  readiness  for  amendment,  he  ought  to  cor- 
rect. Eleven  are  enumerated  :  1.  That  the  soul  was 
made  by  God  out  of  Himself  (3-7)  ;  2.  That  God  will 
continuously  create  souls  forever  (8)  ;  3.  That  the  soul 
has  desert  of  good  before  birth  (9)  ;  4.  (contradicting- 
ly),  That  the  soul  has  desert  of  evil  before  birth  (10)  ; 
5.  That  the  soul  deserved  to  be  sinful  before  any  sin 
(1 1)  ;  6.  That  unbaptized  infants  are  saved  (12)  ;  7.  That 
what  God  predestinates  may  not  occur  (13)  ;  8.  That 
Wisd.  iv.  1  is  spoken  of  infants  (14)  ;  9.  That  some  of 
the  mansions  with  the  Father  are  outside  of  God's 
kingdom  (15-17);  10.  That  the  sacrifice  of  Christ's 
blood  may  be  offered  for  the  unbaptized  (18)  ;  11.  That 
the  unbaptized  may  attain  at  the  resurrection  even  to 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  (19).  The  book  closes  by  re- 
minding Victor  of  his  professions  of  readiness  to  cor- 
rect his  errors,  and  warning  him  against  the  obstinacy 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN    THE    CONTROVERSY.        95 

that  makes  the  heretic  (20-23).  The  fourth  book  deals 
with  the  more  personal  elements  of  the  controversy, 
and  discusses  the  points  in  which  Victor  had  expressed 
dissent  from  Augustine.  It  opens  with  a  statement  of 
the  two  grounds  of  complaint  that  Victor  had  urged 
against  Augustine  ;  viz.,  that  he  refused  to  express  a 
confident  opinion  as  to  the  origin  of  the  soul,  and  that 
he  affirmed  that  the  soul  was  not  corporeal,  but  spirit 
(1-2).  These  two  complaints  are  then  taken  up  at 
length  (2-- 1 6  and  17-37).  To  the  first,  Augustine  replies 
that  man's  knowledge  is  at  best  limited,  and  often  most 
limited  about  the  things  nearest  to  him.  We  do  not 
know  the  constitution  of  our  bodies  ;  and,  above  most 
others,  this  subject  of  the  origin  of  the  soul  is  one  on 
which  no  one  but  God  is  a  competent  witness.  Who 
remembers  his  birth  ?  Who  remembers  what  was 
before  birth  ?  But  this  is  just  one  of  the  subjects  on 
which  God  has  not  spoken  unambiguously  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. Would  it  not  be  better,  then,  for  Victor  to  imi- 
tate Augustine's  cautious  ignorance,  than  that  Augus- 
tine should  imitate  Victor's  rash  assertion  of  errors  ? 
That  the  soul  is  not  corporeal,  Augustine  argues  (18- 
35)  from  the  Scriptures  and  from  the  phenomena  of 
dreams  ;  and  then  shows,  in  opposition  to  Victor's 
trichotomy,  that  the  Scriptures  teach  the  identity  of 
"  soul"  and  "  spirit"  (36-37).  The  book  closes  with  a 
renewed  enumeration  of  Victor's  eleven  errors  (38), 
and  a  final  admonition  to  his  rashness  (39). 

It  is  pleasant  to  know  that  Augustine  found,  in  this 
case  also,  that  righteousness  is  the  fruit  of  the  faithful 
wounds  of  a  friend.  Victor  accepted  the  rebuke,  and 
professed  his  better  instruction  at  the  hands  of  his 
modest  but  resistless  antagonist. 

The  Second  Book  of  "  Marriage  and  Concupiscence." 

The  controvers}7  now  entered  upon  a  new  stage. 
Among  the  evicted  bishops  of  Italy  who  refused  to 
sign  Zosimus'   Epistola    Tractoria,  Julian  of  Eclanum1 

1  This  able  and  learned  man  was  much  the  most  formidable  of  the 
Pelagian  writers.     He  was  a  son  of  a  dear  friend  of  Augustine  and 


9  6     AUGUSTINE  AND    THE   PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY. 

was  easily  the  first,  and  at  this  point  he  appears  as  the 
champion  of  Pelagianism.  It  was  a  sad  fate  that  ar- 
rayed this  beloved  son  of  an  old  friend  against  Augus- 
tine, just  when  there  seemed  to  be  reason  to  hope  that 
the  controversy  was  at  an  end  and  the  victory  won, 
and  the  plaudits  of  the  world  were  greeting  him  as  the 
saviour  of  the  Church.1  But  the  now  fast-aging  bishop 
was  to  find,  that  in  this  "  very  confident  young  man" 
he  had  yet  to  meet  the  most  persistent  and  the  most 
dangerous  advocate  of  the  new  doctrines  that  had 
arisen.  At  an  earlier  period  Julian  had  sent  two  let- 
ters to  Zosimus,  in  which  he  attempted  to  approach 
Augustinian  forms  of  speech  as  much  as  possible,  his 
object  being  to  gain  standing  ground  in  the  Church  for 
the  Italian  Pelagians.  Now  he  appears  as  a  Pelagian 
controversialist.  In  opposition  to  the  book  On  Mar- 
riage and  Concupiscence,  which  Augustine  had  sent  Vale- 
rius, Julian  published  an  extended  work  in  four  thick 
books  addressed  to  Turbantius.2  Extracts  from  the  first 
of  these  books  were  sent  by  some  one  to  Valerius,  and 
were  placed  by  him  in  the  hands  of  Alypius,  who  was 
then  in  Italy,  for  transmission  to  Augustine.  Mean- 
while, a  letter  had  been  sent  to  Rome  by  Julian,3  de- 
was  himself  much  loved  by  him.  He  became  a  "  lector"  in  404,  and 
was  ordained  bishop  by  Innocent  I.  about  417.  Under  Zosimus'  vacil- 
lating policy  he  took  strong  ground  on  the  Pelagian  side,  and,  refus- 
ing to  sign  Zosimus'  Tractoria,  was  exiled  with  his  seventeen  fellow- 
recusants,  and  passed  his  long  life  in  vain  endeavours  to  obtain  recog- 
nition for  the  Pelagian  party.  His  writings  included  two  letters  to 
Zosimus,  a  Confession  of  Faith,  the  two  letters  answered  in  Against 
Two  Letters  of  the  Pelagians  (though  he  seems  to  have  repudiated 
the  former  of  these),  and  two  large  books  against  Augustine,  the  first 
of  which  was  his  four  books  against  the  first  book  of  O11  Marriage 
and  Conctipiscence,  in  reply  to  extracts  from  which  the  second  book 
of  that  treatise  was  written,  whilst  Augustine's  Against  Ju //an,  in  six 
books,  traverses  the  whole  work.  To  this  second  book  Julian  replied  in 
a  rejoinder  addressed  to  Florus,  and  consisting  of  eight  books.  Au- 
gustine's Unfi?iished  Work  is  a  reply  to  this.  Julian's  character  was 
as  noble  as  his  energy  was  great  and  his  pen  acute.  He  stands  out 
among  his  fellow-Pelagians  as  the  sufferer  for  conscience'  sake.  A  full 
account  of  his  works  may  be  read  in  the  Benedictine  Preface  to  Au- 
gustine's U7ifinished  Work,  with  which  may  be  compared  the  article 
on  him  in  Smith  and  Wace's  Dictionary  of  Christian  Biography. 

1  Compare  Epistle  195.  2  A  fellow-recusant. 

8  Julian  afterwards  repudiated  this  letter,  perhaps  because  of  some 
falsifications  it  had  suffered  :  it  seems  to  have  been  certainly  his. 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN    THE    CONTROVERSY.       97 

signed  to  strengthen  the  cause  of  Pelagianism  there. 
A  similar  one  also,  written  in  the  names  of  the  eighteen 
Pelagianizing  Italian  bishops,  was  addressed  to  Rufus, 
bishop  of  Thessalonica  and  representative  of  the  Roman 
see  in  that  portion  of  the  Eastern  Empire  which  was 
regarded  as  ecclesiastically  a  part  of  the  West,  the  pur- 
pose of  which  was  to  obtain  the  powerful  support  of 
this  important  magnate,  and  perhaps,  also,  a  refuge 
from  persecution  within  his  jurisdiction.  These  two 
letters  came  into  the  hands  of  the  new  Pope,  Boniface, 
who  gave  them  also  to  Alypius  for  transmission  to  Au- 
gustine.    Thus  provided,  Alypius  returned  to  Africa. 

The  tactics  of  all  these  writings  of  Julian  were  essen- 
tially the  same.  He  attempted  not  so  much  to  defend 
Pelagiansim  as  to  attack  Augustinianism,  and  thus  liter- 
ally to  carry  the  war  into  Africa.  He  insisted  that  the 
corruption  of  nature  which  Augustine  taught  was  noth- 
ing else  than  Manicheism  ;  that  the  sovereignty  of 
grace,  as  taught  by  him,  was  only  the  attribution  of 
"acceptance  of  persons"  and  partiality  to  God  ;  and 
that  his  doctrine  of  predestination  was  mere  fatalism. 
He  accused  the  anti- Pelagians  of  denying- the  goodness 
of  the  nature  that  God  had  created,  of  the  marriage 
that  He  had  ordained,  of  the  law  that  He  had  given, 
of  the  free  will  that  He  had  implanted  in  man,  as  well 
as  the  perfection  of  His  saints.1  He  insisted  that  this 
teaching  also  did  dishonour  to  baptism  itself  which  it 
professed  so  to  honour,  inasmuch  as  it  asserted  the 
continuance  of  concupiscence  after  baptism  and  thus 
taught  that  baptism  does  not  take  away  sins,  but  only 
shaves  them  off  as  one  shaves  his  beard,  and  leaves  the 
roots  whence  the  sins  may  grow  anew  and  need  cutting 
down  again.  He  complained  bitterly  of  the  way  in 
which  Pelagianism  had  been  condemned,— that  bishops 
had  been  compelled  to  sign  a  definition  ot  dogma,  not 
in  council  assembled,  but  sitting  at  home  ;  and  he  de- 
manded a  rehearing  of  the  whole  case  before  a  lawful 
council,  lest  the  doctrine  of  the  Manicheans  should  be 
forced  upon  the  acceptance  of  the  world. 

1  Compare  Agaz?ist  Two  Letters  of  the  Pelagians,  iii.  24  ;  and 
see  above,  p.  11. 


98    AUGUSTINE   AND    THE  PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY. 

Augustine  felt  a  strong  desire  to  see  the  whole  work 
of  Julian  against  his  book  On  Marriage  and  Concupiscence 
before  he  undertook  a  reply  to  the  excerpts  sent  him 
by  Valerius.  But  he  did  not  feel  justified  in  delaying 
obedience  to  that  officer's  request  ;  therefore  he  wrote 
at  once  two  treatises.  One  of  these  was  an  answer  to 
these  excerpts,  for  the  benefit  of  Valerius  ;  it  consti- 
tutes the  second  book  of  his  On  Marriage  and  Concu- 
piscence. The  other  was  a  far  more  elaborate  examina- 
tion of  the  letters  sent  by  Boniface,  and  bears  the  title, 
Against  Two  Letters  of  the  Pelagians. 

The  purpose  of  the  second  book  of  On  Marriage  and 
Concupiscence,  Augustine  himself  states,  in  its  intioduc- 
tory  sentences,  to  be  "  to  reply  to  the  taunts  of  his  ad- 
versaries with  all  the  truthfulness  and  scriptural  author- 
ity he  could  command."  He  begins  (2)  by  identifying 
the  source  of  the  extracts  forwarded  to  him  by  Vale- 
rius with  Julian's  work  against  his  first  book,  and  then 
remarks  upon  the  garbled  form  in  which  he  is  quoted 
in  them  (3-6),  and  passes  on  to  state  and  refute  Julian's 
charge  that  the  Catholics  had  turned  Manicheans  (7-9). 
At  this  point,  the  refutation  of  Julian  begins  in  good 
earnest,  and  the  method  that  Augustine  proposes  to 
use  is  stated  ;  viz.,  to  adduce  the  adverse  statements, 
and  refute  them  one  by  one  (10).  Beginning  at  the  be- 
ginning, he  quotes  first  the  title  of  the  paper  sent  him, 
which  declares  that  it  is  directed  against  "  those  who 
condemn  matrimony  and  ascribe  its  fruit  to  the  Devil" 
(11).  This  certainly,  says  Augustine,  does  not  describe 
him  or  the  Catholics.  The  next  twenty  chapters 
(10-30),  accordingly,  following  Julian's  order,  labour 
to  prove  that  marriage  is  good  and  ordained  by  God  ; 
but  that  its  good  includes  fecundity  indeed,  but  not  con- 
cupiscence, which  arose  from  sin  and  contracts  sin.  It 
is  next  argued,  that  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  does 
not  imply  an  evil  origin  for  man  (3 1-5 1).  In  the  course 
of  this  argument,  the  following  propositions  are  espe- 
cially defended  :  that  God  makes  offspring  for  good 
and  bad  alike,  just  as  He  sends  the  rain  and  sunshine 
on  just  and  unjust  (31-34)  ;  that  God  makes  everything 
to  be  found  in  marriage  except  its  flaw,  concupiscence 


AUGUSTINE'S   PART  IN    THE    CONTROVERSY.       99 

(35-40)  ;  that  marriage  is  not  the  cause  of  original  sin, 
but  only  the  channel  through  which  it  is  transmitted 
(41-47)  ;  and  that  to  assert  that  evil  cannot  arise  from 
what  is  good  leaves  us  in  the  clutches  of  that  very 
Manicheism  which  is  so  unjustly  charged  against  the 
Catholics— for,  if  evil  be  not  eternal,  what  else  was 
there  from  which  it  could  arise  but  something  good 
(48-51)?  In  concluding,  Augustine  recapitulates,  and 
argues,  especially,  that  shameful  concupiscence  is  of 
sin  and  the  author  of  sin,  and  was  not  in  paradise 
(52-54)  ;  that  children  are  made  by  God,  and  only 
marred  by  the  Devil  (55)  ;  that  Julian,  in  admitting 
that  Christ  died  for  infants,  admits  that  they  need  sal- 
vation (56)  ;  that  what  the  Devil  makes  in  children  is 
not  a  substance,  but  an  injury  to  a  substance  (57-58)  ; 
and  that  to  suppose  that  concupiscence  existed  in  any 
form  in  paradise  introduces  incongruities  in  our  con- 
ception of  life  in  that  abode  of  primeval  bliss  (59-60). 

The  Treatise  ' '  Against  Two  Letters  of  the  Pelagians. ' ' 

The  long  and  important  treatise,  Against  Tzvo  Letters 
of  the  Pelagians,  consists  of  four  books.  The  first  of 
these  replies  to  the  letter  sent  to  Rome,  and  the  other 
three  to  that  sent  to  Thessalonica.  After  a  short  in- 
troduction, in  which  he  thanks  Boniface  for  his  kind- 
ness and  gives  reasons  why  heretical  writings  should  be 
answered  (1-3),  Augustine  begins  at  once  to  rebut  the 
calumnies  which  the  letter  before  him  brings  against 
the  Catholics  (4-28).  These  are  seven  in  number.  1. 
That  the  Catholics  destroy  free  will.  To  this  Augus- 
tine replies  that  none  are  "  forced  into  sin  by  the  neces- 
sity of  their  flesh"  but  all  sin  by  free  will,  though  no 
man  can  have  a  righteous  will  save  by  God's  grace. 
It  is  really  the  Pelagians,  he  argues,  who  destroy  free 
will  by  exaggerating  it  (4-8).  2.  That  Augustine  de- 
clares that  such  mairiage  as  now  exists  is  not  of  God 
(9).  3.  That  sexual  desire  and  intercourse  are  made  a 
device  of  the  Devil,  which  is  sheer  Manicheism  (10-1 1). 
4.  That  the  Old-Testament  saints  are  said  to  have  died 
in  sin  (12).      5.   That  Paul  and   the  other  apostles  are 


ioo  AUGUSTINE   AND    THE   PELAGIAN   CONTROVERSY. 

asserted  to  have  been  polluted  by  lust  all  their  days. 
Augustine's  answer  to  this  includes  a  running  com- 
mentary on  Rom.  vii.  7  sq.,  in  which  (correcting  his 
older  exegesis)  he  shows  that  Paul  is  giving  here  a 
transcript  of  his  own  experience  as  a  typical  Christian 
(13-24).  6.  That  Christ  is  said  not  to  have  been  free 
from  sin  (25).  7.  That  baptism  does  not  give  complete 
remission  of  sins,  but  leaves  roots  from  which  they 
may  again  grow.  To  this  Augustine  replies  that  bap- 
tism does  remit  all  sins,  but  leaves  concupiscence, 
which,  although  not  sin,  is  the  source  of  sin  (26-28). 
Next,  the  positive  part  of  Julian's  letter  is  taken  up, 
and  his  profession  of  faith  against  the  Catholics  exam- 
ined (29-41).  The  seven  affirmations  that  Julian  makes 
here  are  designed  as  the  obverse  of  the  seven  charges 
against  the  Catholics.  He  believed  :  1.  That  free  will 
is  in  all  by  nature,  and  could  not  perish  by  Adam's  sin 
(29)  ;  2.  That  marriage,  as  now  existent,  was  ordained 
by  God  (30)  ;  3.  That  sexual  impulse  and  virility  are 
from  God  (31-35)  ;  4.  That  men  are  God's  work,  and 
no  one  is  forced  to  do  good  or  evil  unwillingly,  but  are 
assisted  by  grace  to  good  and  incited  by  the  Devil  to 
evil  (36-38)  ;  5.  That  the  saints  of  the  Old  Testament 
were  perfected  in  righteousness  here,  and  so  passed 
into  eternal  life  (39)  ;  6.  That  the  grace  of  Christ  (am- 
biguously meant)  is  necessary  for  all,  and  all  children — 
even  those  of  baptized  parents — are  to  be  baptized  (40)  ; 
7.  And  that  baptism  gives  full  cleansing  from  all  sins — 
to  which  Augustine  pointedly  asks,  "  What  does  it  do 
for  infants,  then?"  (41).  The  book  concludes  with  an 
answer  to  Julian's  conclusion,  in  which  he  demands  a 
general  council  and  charges  the  Catholics  with  Mani- 
cheism. 

The  second,  third,  and  fourth  books  deal  with  the  let- 
ter to  Rufus  in  a  somewhat  similar  way.  The  second 
and  third  books  are  occupied  with  the  calumnies  brought 
against  the  Catholics,  and  the  fourth  with  the  claims 
made  by  the  Pelagians.  The  second  book  begins  by  re- 
pelling the  charge  of  Manicheism  brought  against  the 
Catholics  (1-4).  The  pointed  remark  is  added,  that  the 
Pelagians  cannot  hope  to  escape  condemnation  merely 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN    THE    CONTROVERSY.      101 

because  they  are  willing  to  condemn  another  heresy.  It 
then  defends  (with  less  success)  the  Roman  clergy 
against  the  charge  of  prevarication  in  their  dealing 
with  the  Pelagians  (5-8),  and  in  the  course  of  this  all 
that  can  be  said  in  defence  of  Zosimus's  wavering  pol- 
icy is  said  well  and  strongly.  Next  the  charges  against 
Catholic  teaching  are  taken  up  and  answered  (9-16), 
especially  the  two  important  accusations  that  they 
maintain  fate  under  the  name  of  grace  (9-12),  and  that 
they  make  God  an  "accepter  of  persons"  (13-16). 
Augustine's  replies  to  these  charges  are  in  every  way 
admirable.  The  charge  of  "  fate"  rests  solely  on  the 
Catholic  denial  that  grace  is  given  according  to  preced- 
ing meiits  ;  but  the  Pelagians  do  not  escape  the  same 
charge  when  they  acknowledge  that  the  "fates"  of 
baptized  and  unbaptized  infants  do  differ.  It  is,  in 
truth,  not  a  question  of  "  fate,"  but  of  gratuitous  bounty  ; 
and  "  it  is  not  the  Catholics  that  assert  fate  under  the 
name  of  grace,  but  the  Pelagians  that  choose  to  call 
divine  grace  by  the  name  of  'fate  '  "  (12).  As  to  "  ac- 
ceptance of  persons,"  we  must  define  what  we  mean 
by  that.  God  certainly  does  not  accept  one's  "  per- 
son" above  another's  ;  He  does  not  give  to  one  rather 
than  to  another  because  He  sees  something  to  please 
Him  in  one  rather  than  another  :  quite  the  opposite. 
He  gives  of  His  bounty  to  one  while  giving  all  their 
due  to  all,  as  in  the  parable  (Matt.  xx.  9  sq.).  To  ask 
why  He  does  this,  is  to  ask  in  vain  :  the  apostle  an- 
swers by  not  answering  (Rom.-ix.)  ;  and  before  the 
dumb  infants,  who  are  yet  made  to  differ,  all  objection 
to  God  is  dumb.  From  this  point,  the  book  becomes 
an  examination  of  the  Pelagian  doctrine  of  prevenient 
merit  (17-23),  and  the  conclusion  is  reached  that  God- 
gives  all  by  grace,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of 
every  process  of  doing  good  :  1.  He  commands  the 
good  ;  2.  He  gives  the  desire  to  do  it  ;  and,  3.  He  gives 
the  power  to  do  it  ;  and  all,  of  His  gratuitous  mercy. 

The  third  book  continues  the  discussion  of  the  calum- 
nies of  the  Pelagians  against  the  Catholics,  and  enumer- 
ates and  answers  six  of  them  :  viz.,  that  the  Catholics 
teach,  1,  that  the  Old-Testament  law  was  given,   not 


lo2  AUGUSTINE   AND    THE  PELAGIAN   CONTROVERSY. 

to  justify  the  obedient,  but  to  serve  as  cause  of  greater 
sin  (2-3)  ;  2,  that  baptism  does  not  give  entire  remis- 
sion of  sins,  but  the  baptized  are  partly  God's  and  part- 
ly the  Devil's  (4-5)  ;  3,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  did  not 
assist  virtue  in  the  Old  Testament  (6-13)  ;  4,  that  the 
Bible  saints  were  not  holy,  but  only  less  wicked  than 
others  (14-15)  ;  5,  that  Christ  was  a  sinner  by  necessity 
of  His  flesh  (doubtless  Julian's  inference  from  the  doc- 
trine of  race  sin)  (16)  ;  6,  that  men  will  begin  to  fulfil 
God's  commandments  only  after  the  resurrection  (17-23). 
Augustine  shows  that  at  the  basis  of  all  these  calumnies 
lies  either  misapprehension  or  misrepresentation.  In 
concluding  the  book,  he  enumerates  the  three  chief 
points  in  the  Pelagian  heresy,  with  the  five  claims 
growing  out  of  them  of  which  they  most  boasted  ;  and 
then  elucidates  the  mutual  relations  of  the  three  parties, 
Catholics,  Pelagians,  and  Manicheans,  with  reference 
to  these  points,  showing  that  the  Catholics  stand  asun- 
der from  both  the  others  and  condemn  both  (24-27). 

This  conclusion  is  really  a  preparation  for  the  fourth 
book,  which  takes  up  these  five  Pelagian  claims,  and, 
after  showing  the  Catholic  position  on  them  all  in  brief 
(1-3),  discusses  them  in  turn  (4-19)  :  viz.,  the  praise  of 
the  creature  (4-8),  the  praise  of  marriage  (9),  the  praise 
of  the  law  (io-n),  the  praise  of  free  will  (12-16),  and 
the  praise  of  the  saints  (17-18).  At  the  end,  Augustine 
calls  on  the  Pelagians  to  cease  to  oppose  the  Mani- 
cheans only  to  fall  into  heresy  as  bad  as  theirs  (19)  ; 
and  then  in  reply  to  their  accusation  that  the  Catholics 
were  proclaiming  novel  doctrine,  he  adduces  the  testi- 
mony of  Cyprian  and  Ambrose,  both  of  whom  had  re- 
ceived Pelagius'  praise,  on  each  of  the  three  main 
points  of  Peiagianism  (20-32), '  and  closes  with  the  dec- 
laration that  the  "  impious  and  foolish  doctrine,"  as 
they  called  it,  of  the  Catholics,  is  immemorial  truth 
(33),  and  with  a  denial  of  the  right  of  the  Pelagians  to 
ask  for  a  general  council  to  condemn  them  (34).     All 

1  To  wit  :  Cyprian's  testimony  on  original  sin  (20-24),  on  gratuitous 
grace  (25-26),  on  the  imperfection  of  human  righteousness  (27-28);  and 
Ambrose's  testimony  on  original  sin  (29),  on  gratuitous  grace  (30), 
and  on  the  imperfection  of  human  righteousness  (31). 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN    THE    CONTROVERSY.      103 

heresies  do  not  need  an  ecumenical  S3rnod  for  their  con- 
demnation ;  visually  it  is  best  to  stamp  them  out  locally, 
and  not  to  allow  what  may  be  confined  to  a  corner  to 
disturb  the  whole  world. 

The  Treatise  ' '  Against  Julian. 

These  books  were  written  late  in  420,  or  early  in  421, 
and  Alypius  appears  to  have  conveyed  them  to  Italy 
during  the  latter  year.  Before  its  close,  Augustine, 
having  obtained  and  read  the  whole  of  Julian's  attack 
on  the  first  book  of  his  work  On  Marriage  and  Concu- 
piscence, wrote  out  a  complete  answer  to  it.1  He  was 
the  more  anxious  to  complete  this  task,  on  perceiv- 
ing that  the  extracts  sent  b}^  Valerius  were  not  only  all 
from  the  first  book  of  Julian's  treatise,  but  were  some- 
what altered  in  the  extracting.  The  resulting  work, 
Against  Julian,  one  of  the  longest  that  Augustine  wrote 
in  the  whole  course  of  the  Pelagian  controversy,  shows 
its  author  at  his  best.  According  to  Cardinal  Noris's 
judgment,  he  appears  in  it  "  almost  divine,"  and  Au- 
gustine himself  clearly  set  great  store  by  it. 

In  the  first  book  of  this  noble  treatise,  after  profess- 
ing his  continued  love  for  Julian,  "  whom  he  was  un- 
able not  to  love,  whatever  he  [Julian]  should  say  against 
him"  (35),  he  undertakes  to  show  that  in  affixing  the 
opprobrious  name  of  Manicheans  on  those  who  assert 
original  sin,  Julian  is  incriminating  many  of  the  most 
famous  fathers,  both  of  the  Latin  and  Greek  Churches. 
In  proof  of  this,  he  makes  appropriate  quotations  from 
Ireneeus,  Cyprian,  Recticius,  Olympius,  Hilary,  Am- 
brose, Gregory  Nazianzenus,  Basil,  John  of  Constanti- 
nople.2 Then  he  argues,  that,  so  far  from  the  Cath- 
olics falling  into  Manichean  heresy,  Julian  himself 
plays  into  the  hands  of  the  Manicheans  in  their  strife 
against  the  Catholics,  by  many  unguarded  statements, 
such  as,  e.g.,  when  he  says  that  an  evil  thing  cannot 
arise  from  what  is  good,  that  the  work  of  the  Devil 
cannot  be  suffered  to  be  diffused  by  means  of  a  work  of 

1  Compare  Epistle  207,  written  probably  in  the  latter  half  of  421. 

2  That  is,  Chrysostom. 


104  AUGUSTINE  AND    THE  PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY. 

God,  that  a  root  of  evil  cannot  be  inserted  within  a  gift 
of  God,  and  the  like. 

The  second  book  advances  to  greater  detail,  and,  in 
order  to  test  them  by  the  voice  of  antiquity,  adduces 
the  five  great  arguments  which  the  Pelagians  urged 
against  the  Catholics.  These  arguments  are  stated  as 
follows  (2).  "  For  you  say,  '  That  we,  by  asserting 
original  sin,  affirm  that  the  Devil  is  the  maker  of  in- 
fants, condemn  marriage,  deny  that  all  sins  are  remit- 
ted in  baptism,  accuse  God  of  the  guilt  of  sin,  and  pro- 
duce despair  of  perfection. '  You  contend  that  all  these 
follow  as  consequences,  if  we  believe  that  infants  are 
born  bound  by  the  sin  of  the  first  man  and  are  therefore 
under  the  Devil  unless  they  are  born  again  in  Christ. 
For,  '  It  is  the  Devil  that  creates,'  you  say,  '  if  they 
are  created  from  that  wound  which  the  Devil  inflicted 
on  the  human  nature  that  was  made  at  first.'  '  And 
marriage  is  condemned,'  you  say,  '  if  it  is  to  be  believed 
to  have  something  about  it  whence  it  produces  those 
worthy  of  condemnation.'  'And  all  sins  are  not  re- 
mitted in  baptism,'  you  say,  '  if  there  remains  any  evil 
in  baptized  couples  whence  evil  offspring  are  produced.' 
'  And  how  is  God,'  you  ask,  '  not  unjust,  if  He,  while 
remitting  their  own  sins  to  baptized  persons,  yet  con- 
demns their  offspring,  inasmuch  as,  although  it  is  cre- 
ated by  Him,  it  yet  ignorantly  and  involuntarily  con- 
tracts the  sins  of  others  from  those  very  parents  to 
whom  they  are  remitted?'  'Nor  can  men  believe,' 
\ou  add,  '  that  virtue — to  which  corruption  is  to  be 
understood  to  be  contrary — can  be  perfected,  if  they 
cannot  believe  that  it  can  destroy  the  inbred  vices,  al- 
though, no  doubt,  these  can  scarcely  be  considered 
vices,  since  he  does  not  sin  who  is  unable  to  be  other 
than  he  was  created.'  "  These  arguments  are  then 
tested,  one  by  one,  by  the  authority  of  the  earlier  teach- 
ers who  were  appealed  to  in  the  first  book,  and  shown 
to  be  condemned  by  them. 

The  remaining  four  books  follow  Julian's  four  books, 
argument  by  argument,  refuting  him  in  detail.  In  the 
third  book  it  is  urged  that  although  God  is  good  and 
made   man   good   and    instituted   marriage,  which   is, 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN   THE    CONTROVERSY.      105 

therefore,  good,  nevertheless  concupiscence  is  evil  and 
in  it  the  flesh  lusts  against  the  spirit.  Although  chaste 
spouses  use  this  evil  well,  continent  believers  do  better 
in  not  using  it  at  all.  It  is  pointed  out,  how  far  all  this 
is  from  the  madness  of  the  Manicheans,  who  dream  of 
matter  as  essentially  evil  and  co-eternal  with  God  ;  and 
it  is  shown  that  evil  concupiscence  sprang  from  Adam's 
disobedience,  and,  being  transmitted  to  us,  can  be  re- 
moved only  by  Christ.  It  is  shown,  also,  that  Julian 
himself  confesses  lust  to  be  evil,  inasmuch  as  he  speaks 
of  remedies  against  it,  wishes  it  to  be  bridled  and 
speaks  of  the  continent  waging  a  glorious  warfare. 
The  fourth  book  follows  the  second  book  of  Julian's 
work  and  makes  two  chief  contentions  :  that  unbeliev- 
ers have  no  true  virtues,  and  that  even  the  heathen 
recognize  concupiscence  as  evil.  It  also  argues  that 
grace  is  not  given  according  to  merit,  and  yet  is  not  to 
be  confounded  with  fate  ;  and  explains  the  text  that 
asserts  that  '  God  wishes  all  men  to  be  saved,'  in  the 
sense  that  '  all  men  '  means  '  all  that  are  to  be  saved,' 
since  none  are  saved  except  by  His  will.1  The  fifth 
book,  in  like  manner,  follows  Julian's  third  book,  and 
treats  of  such  subjects  as  these  :  that  it  is  due  to  sin 
that  any  infants  are  lost  ;  that  shame  arose  in  our  first 
parents  through  sin  ;  that  sin  can  well  be  the  punish- 
ment of  preceding  sin  ;  that  concupiscence  is  always 
evil,  even  in  those  who  do  not  assent  to  it  ;  that  true 
marriage  may  exist  without  intercourse  ;  that  the 
"  flesh"  of  Christ  differs  from  the  "sinful  flesh"  of 
other  men  ;  and  the  like.  In  the  sixth  book,  Julian's 
fourth  book  is  followed,  and  original  sin  is  proved  from 
the  baptism  of  infants,  the  teaching  of  the  apostles,  and 
the  rites  of  exorcism  and  exsufflation  incorporated  in 
the  form  of  baptism.  Then,  byr  the  help  of  the  illustra- 
tion drawn  from  the  olive  and  the  oleaster,  it  is  ex- 
plained how  Christian  parents  can  produce  unregener- 
ate  offspring  ;  and  the  originally  voluntary  character 
of  sin  is  asserted,  even  though  it  now  comes  by  inher- 
itance. 

1  Compare  Oft  Rebuke  and  Grace,  44  ;  Enchiridion,  103  ;  City  of 
God,  xxii.  1,2. 


106  AUGUSTINE   AND    THE   PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY. 
The  ' '  Enchiridion." 

After  the  completion  of  this  important  work,  there 
succeeded  a  lull  in  the  controversy  of  some  years'  dura- 
tion ;  and  the  calm  refutation  of  Pelagianism  and  expo- 
sition of  Christian  grace  which  Augustine  gave  in  his 
Enchiridion,1  might  well  have  seemed  to  him  his  closing 
word  on  this  all-absorbing  subject.  This  handbook  On 
Faith,  Hope,  and  Charity  was  written  at  the  instance  of 
one  Laurentius,  who  is  not  otherwise  known,  and  cer- 
tainly later  than  the  opening  of  a.d.  421.  In  it  Augus- 
tine treats  briefly  but  pretty  carefully,  as  he  himself  says, 
"  the  manner  in  which  God  is  to  be  worshipped,  which 
knowledge  divine  Scripture  defines  to  be  the  true  wis- 
dom of  man."  a  One  of  the  questions  which  Laurentius 
had  asked  was  not  only  "  what  ought  to  be  man's  chief 
end  in  life,"  but  also  "  what  he  ought,  in  view  of  the 
various  heresies,  chiefly  to  avoid"  (4).  Accordingly, 
in  the  first  part  of  the  treatise— that  consecrated  to  the 
treatment  of  faith,  in  which  he  unfolds  the  proper  ob- 
jects of  faith,  that  is,  what  we  are  to  believe — Augus- 
tine briefly  refutes  the  tenets  of  the  leading  heresies, 
inclusive  of  Pelagianism.  This  is  not  done  formally  ;  he 
notes  rather  the  impossibility  of  giving  a  real  defence 
of  Christianity  against  these  assaults  in  a  practical  hand- 
book (6)  :  but  that  is  said  which  he  deemed  important 
in  order  to  keep  the  heart  rightly  Christian  in  the  midst 
of  the  evil  thoughts  of  men. 

On  creating  man,  he  explains,  God  placed  him  in 
that  protected  nook  of  life  which  we  call  Eden  (25). 
When  man  lost  God's  favour  by  sin,  all  his  descend- 
ants, being  the  offspring  of  carnal  lust,  were  tainted 
with  an  original  sin  (26),  and  thus  the  whole  mass  of  the 
human  race  came  under  condemnation  and  lay  steeped 
and  wallowing  in  misery  (27).  Whence  it  is  a  matter 
of  course  that  they  cannot  be  restored  by  the  merit  of 
any  good  works  of  their  own  (30)  ;  for  by  an  evil  use 
of  free  will  man  has  destroyed  both  himself  and  it,  and 

1  See  vol.  iii.  of  Tlic  Post-Nicene  Library,  pp.  237  sq. 

2  Retractations,  lib.  ii.  c.  63. 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN    THE    CONTROVERSY.      107 

a  dead  man  cannot  restore  himself  to  life  (30).  Man 
cannot,  therefore,  arrogate  to  himself  even  the  merit 
of  his  own  faith,  "  and  we  shall  be  made  truly  free  only 
when  God  fashions  us — that  is,  forms  and  creates 
us  anew,  not  as  men — for  He  has  done  that  already  — 
but  as  good  men"  (31).  The  whole  work  belongs  to 
God,  "  who  both  makes  the  will  of  men  righteous  and 
thus  prepares  it  for  assistance,  and  assists  it  when  pre- 
pared" (32).  As  the  whole  human  race  lies  under  just 
condemnation,  there  is  need  of  a  Mediator  (33),  who, 
being  made  sin  for  us,  reconciles  us  to  God  (41)  ;  and 
this  is  s)~mbolized  in  the  great  sacrament  of  baptism 
(42),  which  is  given  to  adults  and  infants  alike  (43  and 
52).  "  The  whole  human  race  was  originally  and,  as 
we  may  say,  radically  condemned"  on  account  of  the 
one  sin  of  Adam,  and  this  sin  ' '  cannot  be  pardoned  or 
blotted  out  except  through  the  one  Mediator  between 
God  and  man,  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  who  alone  has 
had  power  to  be  so  born  as  not  to  need  a  second  birth" 
(48).  Who  are  to  be  interested  in  this  salvation  it  is 
the  prerogative  of  God  to  determine,  who  "  changes 
the  evil  will  of  men  whichever,  whenever,  and  where- 
soever He  chooses"  (98),  not,  therefore,  according  to 
any  works  of  their  own  foreseen  by  Him,  but  accord- 
ing to  His  own  good  pleasure.  "  The  whole  human 
race  was  condemned  in  its  rebellious  head  by  a  divine 
judgment  so  just  that,  if  not  a  single  member  of  the  race 
had  been  redeemed,  no  one  could  justly  have  ques- 
tioned the  justice  of  God  ;  and  it  was  right  that  those 
who  are  redeemed  should  be  redeemed  in  such  a  way 
as  to  show,  by  the  greater  number  who  are  unre- 
deemed and  left  in  their  just  condemnation,  what  the 
whole  race  deserved,  and  whither  the  deserved  judg- 
ment of  God  would  lead  even  the  redeemed,  did  not 
His  undeserved  mercy  interpose,  so  that  every  mouth 
might  be  stopped  of  those  who  wish  to  glory  in  their 
own  merits,  and  that  he  that  glorieth  might  glory  in 
the  Lord"  (99).  Thus  Augustine  taught  on  the  great 
subjects  of  sin  and  grace  when  his  mind  was  measura- 
blv  withdrawn  from  controversy  and  intent  on  the  cre- 
ation of  right  frames  in  the  hearts  of  men. 


108  AUGUSTINE   AND    THE  PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY. 

The  Treatise  ' '  On  Grace  and  Free  Will. 

Augustine  had  not  yet,  however,  given  the  world  all 
he  had  in  treasure  for  it.  And  we  can  rejoice  in  the 
chance  that  five  or  six  years  afterward  drew  from  him 
a  renewed  discussion  of  some  of  the  more  important 
aspects  of  the  doctrine  of  grace.  The  circumstances 
which  brought  this  about  are  sufficiently  interesting  in 
themselves,  and  open  to  us  an  unwonted  view  into 
the  monastic  life  of  the  times.  There  was  an  important 
monastery  at  Adrumetum,  the  metropolitan  city  of  the 
province  of  Byzacium.1  From  this  a  monk  named 
Florus  went  out  on  a  journey  of  charity  to  his  native 
country  of  Uzalis  about  426.  On  the  journey  he  met  with 
Augustine's  letter  to  Sixtus,2  in  which  the  doctrines  of 
gratuitous  and  prevenient  grace  were  expounded.  He 
was  much  delighted  with  it,  and,  procuring  a  copy, 
sent  it  back  to  his  monastery  for  the  edification  of  his 
brethren,  while  he  himself  went  on  to  Carthage.  At 
the  monaster)^,  the  letter  created  great  disturbance. 
Without  the  knowledge  of  the  abbot,  Valentinus,  it 
was  read  aloud  to  the  monks,  many  of  whom  were  un- 
skilled in  theological  questions.  Some  five  or  more  of 
them  were  greatly  offended,  and  declared  that  free  will 
was  destroyed  by  it.  A  secret  strife  arose  among  the 
brethren,  some  taking  extreme  grounds  on  both  sides. 
Of  all  this,  Valentinus  remained  ignorant  until  the  re- 
turn of  Florus,  who  was  attacked  as  the  author  of  all 
the  trouble,  and  who  felt  it  his  duty  to  inform  the 
abbot  of  the  state  of  affairs.  Valentinus  applied  first  to 
the  bishop,  Evodius,  for  such  instruction  as  would 
make  Augustine's  letter  clear  to  the  most  simple. 
Evodius  replied,  praising  their  zeal  and  deprecating 
their  contentiousness,  and  explaining  that  Adam  had 
full  free  will,  but  that  it  is  now  wounded  and  weak, 
and  Christ's  mission  was  as  a  physician  to  cure  and  re- 
cuperate it.  "  Let  them  read,"  is  his  prescription, 
"  the  words  of  God's  elders.  .  .  .  And  when  they  do 
not  understand,   let  them  not  quickly  reprehend,  but 

1  Now  a  portion  of  Tunis.  2  Epistle  194. 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN    THE    CONTROVERSY.      109 

pray  to  understand."  This  did  not,  however,  cure  the 
malcontents  ;  and  the  holy  presbyter  Sabrinus  was  ap- 
pealed to,  and  sent  a  book  with  clear  interpretations. 
But  neither  was  this  satisfactory  ;  and  Valentinus,  at 
last,  reluctantly  consented  that  Augustine  himself 
should  be  consulted — fearing,  he  says,  lest  by  making 
inquiries  he  should  seem  to  waver  about  the  truth. 

Two  members  of  the  community  were  consequently 
permitted  to  journey  to  Hippo,  though  they  took  with 
them  no  introduction  and  no  commendation  from  their 
abbot.  Augustine,  nevertheless,  received  them  with- 
out hesitation,  as  they  bore  themselves  with  too  great 
simplicity  to  allow  him  to  suspect  them  of  deception. 
Now  we  get  a  glimpse  of  life  in  the  great  bishop's  mo- 
nastic home.  The  monks  told  their  story,  and  were 
listened  to  with  courtesy  and  instructed  with  patience. 
As  they  were  anxious  to  return  home  before  Easter, 
they  received  a  letter  for  Valentinus  '  in  which  Augus- 
tine briefly  explains  the  nature  of  the  misapprehension 
that  had  arisen,  and  points  out  that  both  grace  and  free 
will  must  be  defended,  and  neither  so  exaggerated  as 
to  deny  the  other.  The  letter  to  Sixtus,  he  explains, 
was  written  against  the  Pelagians,  who  assert  that 
grace  is  given  according  to  merit,  and  briefly  expounds 
the  true  doctrine  of  grace  as  necessarily  gratuitous  and 
therefore  prevenient.  When  the  monks  were  on  the 
point  of  starting  home  they  were  joined  by  a  third 
companion  from  Adrumetum,  and  were  led  to  prolong 
their  visit.  This  gave  Augustine  the  opportunity  he 
craved  for  their  fuller  instruction.  He  read  with 
them  and  explained  to  them  not  only  his  letter  to  Six- 
tus, from  which  the  strife  had  risen,  but  also  much  of 
the  chief  literature  of  the  Pelagian  controversy,2 
copies  of  which  also  were  made  for  them  to  take  home 
with  them.  And  when  they  were  ready  to  go,  he  sent 
by  them  another  and  longer  letter  to  Valentinus,  and 
placed  in  their  hands  a  treatise  composed  for  their  es- 
pecial use,  which,  moreover,  he  took  the  trouble  to  ex- 
plain to  them.     This  longer  letter  is  essentially  an  ex- 

1  Epistle  214.  •  Epistle  215,  2  sq. 


no  AUGUSTINE  AND    THE  PELAGIAN   CONTROVERSY. 

hortation  ' '  to  turn  aside  neither  to  the  right  hand  nor 
to  the  left," — neither  to  the  left  hand  of  the  Pelagian 
error  of  upholding  free  will  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
deny  grace,  nor  to  the  right  hand  of  the  equal  error  of 
so  upholding  grace  as  if  we  might  yield  ourselves  to 
evil  with  impunity.  Both  grace  and  free  will  are  to  be 
proclaimed  ;  and  it  is  true  both  that  grace  is  not  given 
to  merits,  and  that  we  are  to  be  judged  at  the  last  day 
according  to  our  works.  While  the  treatise  which 
Augustine  composed  for  a  fuller  exposition  of  these 
doctrines  is  the  important  work  On  Grace  and  Free  Will. 
After  a  brief  introduction,  explaining  the  occasion  of 
his  writing,  and  exhorting  the  monks  to  humility  and 
teachableness  before  God's  revelations  (i),  Augustine 
begins  this  treatise  by  asserting  and  proving  the  two 
propositions  that  the  Scriptures  clearly  teach  that  man 
has  free  will  (2-5),  and,  as  clearly,  the  necessity  of 
grace  for  his  doing  any  good  (6-9).  He  next  examines 
the  passages  which  the  Pelagians  assert  to  teach  that 
we  must  first  turn  to  God,  before  He  visits  us  with  His 
grace  (10-11).  And  then  he  undertakes  to  show  that 
grace  is  not  given  to  merit  (12  sq.),  appealing  especially 
to  Paul's  teaching  and  example,  and  replying  to  the 
assertion  that  forgiveness  is  the  only  grace  that  is  not 
given  according  to  our  merits  (15-18),  and  to  the  query, 
"  How  can  eternal  life  be  both  of  grace  and  of  re- 
ward ?"  (19-21).  The  nature  of  grace,  what  it  is,  is 
next  explained  (22  sq.).  It  is  not  the  law,  which  gives 
only  knowledge  of  sin  (22-24)  ;  nor  nature,  which 
would  render  Christ's  death  needless  (25)  ;  nor  mere 
forgiveness  of  sins,  as  the  Lord's  Prayer  (which  should 
be  read  with  Cyprian's  comments  on  it)  is  enough  to 
show  (26).  Nor  will  it  do  to  say  that  it  is  given  to  the 
merit  of  a  good  will,  thus  distinguishing  the  good  work 
which  is  of  grace  from  the  good  will  which  precedes 
grace  (27-30)  ;  for  the  Scriptures  oppose  this,  and  our 
prayers  for  others  prove  that  we  expect  God  to  be  the 
first  mover,  as  indeed  both  Scripture  and  experience 
prove  that  He  is.  It  is  next  shown  that  both  free  will 
and  grace  are  concerned  in  the  heart's  conversion 
(31-32),  and  that  love  is  the  spring  of  all  good  in  man 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN    THE    CONTROVERSY.      Ill 

(33-40),  which,  however,  we  have  only  because  God 
first  loved  us  (38),  and  which  is  certainly  greater 
than  knowledge,  although  the  Pelagians  admit  only 
the  latter  to  be  from  God  (40).  God's  sovereign  gov- 
ernment of  men's  wills  is  then  proved  from  Scripture 
(41-43),  and  the  wholly  gratuitous  character  of  grace  is 
illustrated  (44),  while  the  only  possible  theodicy  is 
found  in  the  certainty  that  the  Lord  of  all  the  earth 
will  do  right.  For,  though  no  one  knows  why  He 
takes  one  and  leaves  another,  we  all  know  that  He 
hardens  judicially  and  saves  graciously,—  that  He 
hardens  none  who  do  not  deserve  hardening,  but  none 
that  He  saves  deserve  to  be  saved  (45).  The  treatise 
closes  with  an  exhortation  to  its  prayerful  and  repeated 
study  (46). 

The  Treatise  "  On  Rebuke  and  Grace.''' 

The  one  request  that  Augustine  made,  on  sending 
the  treatise  On  Grace  and  Free-  Will  to  Valentinus,  was 
that  the  monk  Floras,  through  whom  the  controversy 
had  arisen,  should  be  sent  to  him.  He  wished  to  con- 
verse with  him  and  learn  whether  he  had  been  mis- 
understood, or  had  himself  misunderstood  Augustine. 
In  due  time  Floras  arrived  at  Hippo,  bringing  a  letter1 
from  Valentinus  which  thanked  Augustine  for  his 
"sweet"  and  "healing"  instruction,  and  introduced 
Floras  as  one  whose  true  faith  could  be  confided  in. 
It  is  very  clear,  both  from  Valentinus'  letter  and  from 
the  hints  that  Augustine  gives,  that  his  loving  dealing 
with  the  monks  had  borne  admirable  fruit  :  "  none 
were  cast  down  for  the  worse,  some  were  built  up  for 
the  better.""  But  it  was  reported  to  him  that  some 
one  at  the  monastery  had  objected,  to  the  doctrine  he 
had  taught  them,  that  "  no  man,  then,  ought  to  be  re- 
buked for  not  keeping  God's  commandments  ;  but  only 
God  should  be  besought  that  he  might  keep  them."3 
In  other  words,  it  was  said  that  if  all  good  was,  in  the 
last  resort,   from  God's  grace,   man  ought  not  to  be 

1  Epistle  216.  i  On  Rebuke  and  Grace,  1. 

3  Retractations,  ii.  67.     Compare  On  Rebuke  and  Grace,  5  sq. 


112  AUGUSTINE  AND    THE    PELAGIAN   CONTROVERSY. 

blamed  for  not  doing  what  he  could  not  do,  but  God 
ought  to  be  besought  to  do  for  man  what  He  alone 
could  do  :  we  ought,  in  short,  to  apply  to  the  source 
of  power.  This  occasioned  the  composition  of  yet 
another  treatise,  that  entitled  On  Rebuke  and  Graced 
the  object  of  which  was  to  explain  the  relations  of 
grace  to  human  conduct,  and  especially  to  make  it 
plain  that  the  sovereignty  of  God's  grace  does  not 
supersede  our  duty  to  ourselves  or  to  our  fellow-men. 
The  treatise  begins  by  thanking  Valentinus  for  his 
letter  and  for  sending  Florus  (whom  Augustine  finds 
well  instructed  in  the  truth),  praising  God  for  the 
good  effect  of  the  previous  book,  and  recommending 
its  continued  study.  This  is  followed  by  a  brief  ex- 
position of  the  catholic  faith  concerning  grace,  free- 
will and  the  law  (1-2).  The  general  proposition  that 
is  defended  is  that  the  gratuitous  sovereignty  of  God's 
grace  does  not  supersede  human  means  for  obtaining 
and  continuing  it  (3  sq.).  This  is  shown  by  the  apos- 
tle's example,  who  used  all  human  means  for  the  prose- 
cution of  his  work  and  yet  confessed  that  it  was  "  God 
that  gave  the  increase"  (3).  Objections  are  then  an- 
swered (4  sq.), — especially  the  great  one  that  "  it  is 
not  my  fault  if  I  do  not  do  what  I  have  not  received 
grace  for  doing"  (6).  To  this  Augustine  replies  (7-10) 
that  we  deserve  rebuke  for  our  very  unwillingness  to 
be  rebuked,  that  on  the  same  reasoning  the  prescrip- 
tion of  the  law  and  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  would 
be  useless,  that  the  apostle's  example  opposes  such  a 
position,  and  that  our  consciousness  witnesses  that  we 
deserve  rebuke  for  not  persevering  in  the  right  way. 
From  this  point  an  important  discussion  arises,  in  this  in- 
terest, of  the  gift  of  perseverance  (n-19)  and  of  God's 
election  (20-24).  It  is  taught  that  no  one  is  saved  who 
does  not  persevere,  and  that  all  who  are  predestinated 
or  "  called  according  to  God's  purpose"  (Augustine's 
phrase  for  what  we  should  name  "  effectually  called") 

1  On  the  importance  of  this  treatise  for  Augustine's  doctrine  of  pre- 
destination, see  Wiggers'  Augustinianism  and  Pelagianism,  E.  T. 

p.  236,  where  a  sketch  of  the  history  of  this  doctrine  in  Augustine's 
writings  may  be  found. 


AUGUSTINE' S  PART  IN    THE    CONTROVERSY.      113 

will  persevere,  and  yet  that  we  co-operate  by  our 
will  in  all  good  deeds  and  deserve  rebuke  if  we  do 
not.  Whether  Adam  received  the  gift  of  perseverance, 
and,  in  general,  what  the  difference  is  between  the 
grace  given  to  him  (which  was  that  grace  by  which  he 
was  able  to  stand)  and  that  now  given  to  God's  chil- 
dren (which  is  that  grace  by  which  we  are  made  act- 
ually to  stand),  are  next  discussed  (26-38),  with  the 
result  of  showing  the  superior  greatness  of  the  gifts  of 
grace  now  to  those  given  before  the  fall.  The  neces- 
sity of  God's  mercy  at  all  times  and  our  constant  de- 
pendence on  it,  are  next  vigorously  asserted  (39-42)  : 
even  in  the  day  of  judgment,  it  is  declared,  if  we  are 
not  judged  "  with  mercy"  we  cannot  be  saved  (41). 
The  treatise  is  brought  to  an  end  by  a  concluding  ap- 
plication of  the  whole  discussion  to  the  special  matter 
in  hand,  rebuke  (43-49).  Seeing  that  rebuke  is  one  of 
God's  means  of  working  out  his  gracious  purposes,  it 
cannot  be  inconsistent  with  the  sovereignty  of  that 
grace  ;  for,  of  course,  God  predestinates  the  means 
with  the  end  (43).  Nor  can  we  know,  in  our  igno- 
rance, whether  our  rebuke  is,  in  any  particular  case,  to 
be  the  means  of  amendment  or  the  ground  of  greater 
condemnation.  How  dare  we,  then,  withhold  it? 
Let  it  be,  however,  graduated  to  the  fault,  and  let  us 
always  remember  its  purpose  (46-48).  Above  all,  let 
us  not  venture  to  hold  it  back,  lest  we  withhold  from 
our  brother  the  means  of  his  recovery,  and,  as  well, 
disobey  the  command  of  God  (49). 

The  Letter  to   Vitalis. 

It  was  not  long  afterwards  (about  427)  that  Augus- 
tine was  called  upon  to  attempt  to  reclaim  an  erring 
Carthaginian  friend,  Vitalis  by  name,  who  had  been 
brought  to  trial  on  the  charge  of  teaching  that  the  be- 
ginning of  faith  was  not  the  gift  of  God  but  the  act  of 
man's  own  free  will  {ex  propria  voluntatis).  This  was 
essentially  the  semi- Pelagian  position  which  was  subse- 
quently to  make  so  large  a  figure  in  history  ;  and 
Augustine  treats  it  now  as  necessarily  implying  the 
basal  idea  of  Pelagianism. 


H4  AUGUSTINE   AND    THE   PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY. 

In  the  important  letter  which  he  sent  to  Vitalis,1 
Augustine  first  argues  that  his  position  is  inconsistent 
with  the  prayers  of  the  church.  He,  Augustine,  pra}'S 
that  Vitalis  may  come  to  the  true  faith  ;  but  does  not 
this  prayer  ascribe  the  origination  of  right  faith  to 
God?  The  Church  so  prays  for  all  men.  The  priest 
at  the  altar  exhorts  the  people  to  pray  God  for  unbe- 
lievers, that  He  may  convert  them  to  the  faith  ;  for 
catechumens,  that  He  may  breathe  into  them  a  desire 
for  regeneration  ;  for  the  faithful,  that  by  His  aid  they 
may  persevere  in  what,  thev  have  begun.  Will  Vitalis 
refuse  to  obey  these  exhortations,  because,  forsooth, 
faith  is  of  free  will  and  not  of  God's  gift  ?  Nay,  will  a 
Carthaginian  scholar  array  himself  against  Cyprian's 
exposition  of  the  Lord's  prayer?  For  certainly 
Cyprian  teaches  that  we  are  to  ask  of  God  what  Vitalis 
says  is  to  be  had  of  ourselves.  We  may  go  farther. 
It  is  not  Cyprian  but  Paul  who  says,  "  Let  us  pray 
to  God  that  we  do  no  evil  "  (2  Cor.  xiii.  7)  ;  it  is  the 
Psalmist  who  says,  "  The  steps  of  man  are  directed  by 
God"  (Ps.  xxxvi.  23).  "  If  we  wish  to  defend  free 
will,"  Augustine  urges,  "  let  us  not  strive  against  that 
by  which  it  is  made  free.  For  he  who  strives  against 
grace,  by  which  the  will  is  made  free  for  refusing  evil 
and  doing  good,  wishes  his  will  to  remain  captive. 
Tell  us,  I  beg  you,  how  the  apostle  can  say,  '  We  give 
thanks  to  the  Father  who  made  us  fit  to  have  our  lot 
with  the  saints  in  light,  who  delivered  us  from  the 
power  of  darkness  and  translated  us  into  the  kingdom 
of  the  Son  of  His  love  '  (Col.  i.  12,  13),  if  not  He,  but 
itself,  frees  our  choice  ?  It  is,  then,  a  false  rendering 
of  thanks  to  God,  as  if  He  does  what  He  does  not  do  ; 
and  he  has  erred  who  has  said  that  '  He  makes  us  fit, 
etc'  '  The  grace  of  God,'  therefore,  does  not  consist 
in  the  nature  of  free  will,  and  in  law  and  teaching, 
as  the  Pelagian  perversity  dreams  ;  but  it  is  given  for 
each  single  act  by  His  will,  concerning  whom  it  is 
written,"— quoting  Ps.  Ixvii.  10. 

About  the  middle  of  the  letter,  Augustine  lays  down 

1  Epistle  217. 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN    THE    CONTROVERSY.     115 

twelve  propositions  against  the  Pelagians,  which  are 
important  as  communicating  to  us  what,  at  the  end  of 
the  controversy,  he  considered  the  chief  points  in  dis- 
pute. "  Since,  therefore,"  he  writes,  "  we  are  catholic 
Christians  :  1.  We  know  that  new-born  children  have 
not  yet  done  anything  in  their  own  lives,  good  or  evil, 
neither  have  they  come  into  the  miseries  of  this  life 
according  to  the  deserts  of  some  previous  life,  which 
none  of  them  can  have  had  in  their  own  persons  ;  and 
yet,  because  they  are  born  carnally  after  Adam,  they 
contract  the  contagion  of  ancient  death  by  the  first 
birth,  and  are  not  freed  from  the  punishment  of  eternal 
death  (which  is  contracted  by  a  just  condemnation, 
passing  over  from  one  to  all),  except  they  are  by  grace 
born  again  in  Christ.  2.  We  know  that  the  grace  of 
God  is  given  neither  to  children  nor  to  adults  accord- 
ing to  our  deserts.  3.  We  know  that  it  is  given  to 
adults  for  each  several  act.  4.  We  know  that  it  is  not 
given  to  all  men  ;  and  to  those  to  whom  it  is  given,  it 
is  not  only  not  given  according  to  the  merits  of  works, 
but  it  is  not  even  given  to  them  according  to  the  merits 
of  their  will  ;  and  this  is  especially  apparent  in  chil- 
dren. 5.  We  know  that  to  those  to  whom  it  is  given, 
it  is  given  by  the  gratuitous  mercy  of  God.  6.  We 
know  that  to  those  to  whom  it  is  not  given,  it  is  not 
given  by  the  just  judgment  of  God.  7.  We  know  that 
we  shall  all  stand  before  the  tribunal  of  Christ,  and 
each  shall  receive  according  to  what  he  has  done 
through  the  body, — not  according  to  what  he  would 
have  done,  had  he  lived  longer,— whether  good  or 
evil.  8.  We  know  that  even  children  are  to  receive 
according  to  what  they  have  done  through  the  body, 
whether  good  or  evil.  But  according  to  what  'they 
have  done  '  not  by  their  own  act,  but  by  the  act  of 
those  by  whose  responses  for  them  they  are  said  both 
to  renounce  the  Devil  and  to  believe  in  God,  wherefore 
they  are  counted  among  the  number  of  the  faithful  and 
have  part  in  the  statement  of  the  Lord  when  He  says, 
'  Whosoever  shall  believe  and  be  baptized,  shall  be 
saved.'  Therefore  also,  to  those  who  do  not  receive 
this  sacrament,  belongs  what  follows,  '  But  whosoever 


n6  AUGUSTIXE    AND    THE   PELAGIAN   CONTROVERSY. 

shall  not  have  believed,  shall  be  damned  '  (Mark  xvi. 
16).  Whence  these  too,  as  I  have  said,  if  they  die  in 
that  early  age,  are  judged,  of  course,  according  to 
what  they  have  done  through  the  body,  i.e.,  in  the 
time  in  which  they  were  in  the  body,  when  they  believe 
or  do  not  believe  by  the  heart  and  mouth  of  their 
sponsors,  when  they  are  baptized  or  not  baptized, 
when  they  eat  or  do  not  eat  the  flesh  ol  Christ,  when 
they  drink  or  do  not  drink  His  blood, — according  to 
those  things,  then,  which  they  have  done  through  the 
bod)-,  not  according  to  those  which,  had  they  lived 
longer,  they  would  have  done.  9.  We  know  that 
blessed  are  the  dead  that  die  in  the  Lord  ;  and  that 
what  the}-  would  have  done  had  they  lived  longer  is 
not  imputed  to  them.  10.  We  know  that  those  that 
believe,  with  their  own  heart,  in  the  Lord,  do  so  by 
their  own  free  will  and  choice.  11.  We  know  that  we 
who  already  believe  act  with  right  faith  towards  those 
who  do  not  wish  to  believe,  when  we  pray  to  God 
that  they  may  wish  it.  12.  We  know  that  for  those 
who  have  believed  out  of  this  number,  we  both  ought 
and  are  rightly  and  truly  accustomed  to  return  thanks 
to  God,  as  for  his  benefits." 

Certainly  such  a  body  of  propositions  commends 
their  author  to  us  as  Christian  both  in  head  and  heart  : 
they  are  admirable  in  every  respect  ;  and  even  in  the 
matter  of  the  salvation  of  infants,  where  he  had  not 
yet  seen  the  light  of  truth,  he  expresses  himself  in  a 
way  as  engaging  in  its  hearty  faith  in  God's  goodness 
as  it  is  honorable  in  its  loyalty  to  what  he  believed  to 
be  truth  and  justice.  Here  his  doctrine  of  the  Church 
ran  athwart  and  clouded  his  view  of  the  reach  of 
grace  ;  but  we  seem  to  see  between  the  lines  the  prom- 
ise of  the  brighter  dawn  of  truth  that  was  yet  to  come. 
The  rest  of  the  epistle  is  occupied  with  an  exposition 
of  these  propositions,  which  ranks  with  the  richest  pass- 
ages of  the  anti-Pelagian  writings,  and  which  breathes 
everywhere  a  yearning  for  his  correspondent  which, 
we   cannot  help  hoping,  proved  salutary  to  his  faith. 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN   THE    CONTROVERSY.      117 

The  Treatise  "  On  Heresies." 

It  is  not  without  significance,  that  the  error  of 
Vitalis  took  a  semi-Pelagian  form.  Pure  Pelagianism 
was  by  this  time  no  longer  a  living  issue.  Augustine 
was  himself,  no  doubt,  not  yet  done  with  it.  The  sec- 
ond book  of  his  treatise  On  Marriage  and  Concupiscence, 
which  seems  to  have  been  taken  to  Italy  by  Alypius 
in  421,  received  at  once  the  attention  of  Julian  and 
was  elaborately  answered  by  him  during  that  same 
year,  in  eight  books  addressed  to  one  of  his  fellow- 
recusants  named  Florus.  But  Julian  was  now  in 
Cilicia,  and  his  book  was  slow  in  working  its  way 
westward.  It  was  found  at  Rome  by  Alypius,  appar- 
ently in  427  or  428,  and  he  at  once  set  about  transcrib- 
ing it  for  his  friend's  use.  An  opportunity  arising  to 
send  it  to  Africa  before  it  was  finished,  he  forwarded 
to  Augustine  the  five  books  that  were  ready,  with  an 
urgent  request  that  they  should  receive  his  immediate 
attention,  and  a  promise  to  send  the  other  three  as 
soon  as  possible.  Augustine  gives  an  account  of  the 
progress  of  his  reply  to  them  in  a  letter  written  to 
Ouodvultdeus,  apparently  in  428. '  This  deacon  was 
urging  Augustine  to  give  the  Church  a  succinct  ac- 
count of  all  heresies  ;  and  Augustine  excuses  himself 
from  immediately  undertaking  that  task  by  the  press  of 
work  on  his  hands.  He  was  writing  his  Retractations, 
and  had  already  finished  two  books  of  them,  in  which 
he  had  dealt  with  two  hundred  and  thirty-two  of  his 
works.  His  letters  and  homilies  remained  to  be  ex- 
amined, and  he  had  given  the  necessary  reading  to 
many  of  the  letters.  He  was  engaged  also,  he  tells  his 
correspondent,  on  a  reply  to  the  eight  books  of  Julian's 
new  work.  Working  night  and  day,  he  had  already 
completed  his  response  to  the  first  three  of  Julian's 
books  and  had  begun  on  the  fourth  while  still  expect- 
ing the  arrival  of  the  last  three,  which  Alypius  had 
promised  to  send.  If  he  had  completed  the  answer  to 
the  five  books  of  Julian  which  he  already  had  in  hand 

xEpistle   224. 


Ii8  AUGUSTINE  AND    THE  PELAGIAN    CONTROVERSY. 

before  the  other  three  reached  him,  he  might  begin 
the  work  which  Quodvultdeus  so  earnestly  desired 
him  to  undertake.  In  due  time,  whatever  may  have 
been  the  trials  and  labors  that  needed  first  to  be  met, 
the  desired  treatise  On  Heresies  was  written  (about  428), 
and  the  eighty-eighth  chapter  of  it  gives  us  a  welcome 
compressed  account  of  the  Pelagian  heresy,  which  may 
be  accepted  as  the  obverse  of  the  account  of  catholic 
truth  given  in  the  letter  to  Vitalis. 

"  To  the  grace  of  God,  by  which  we  have  been  pre- 
destinated unto  the  adoption  of  sons  by  Jesus  Christ 
unto  himself  (Eph.  i.  5),  and  by  which  we  are  delivered 
from  the  power  of  darkness  so  as  to  believe  in  Him 
and  be  translated  into  His  kingdom  (Col.  i.  13)  (where- 
fore He  says,  '  No  man  comes  to  Me,  except  it  be 
given  him  of  My  Father  '  [John  vi.  66]),  and  by  which 
love  is  shed  abroad  in  our  hearts  (Rom.  v.  5),  so  that 
faith  may  work  by  love,"  the  Pelagians,  he  tells  us, 
"  are  to  such  an  extent  inimical  that  they  believe  that 
man  is  able,  without  it,  to  keep  all  the  Divine  com- 
mandments—  whereas,  if  this  were  true,  it  would 
clearly  be  an  empty  thing  for  the  Lord  to  say,  '  With- 
out Me  ye  can  do  nothing'  (John  xv.  5)."  "  When 
Pelagius,"  he  adds,  "  was  at  length  accused  by  the 
brethren,  because  he  attributed  nothing  to  the  assist- 
ance of  God's  grace  towards  the  keeping  of  His  com- 
mandments, he  yielded  to  their  rebuke  so  far  as,  not 
indeed  to  place  this  grace  above  free  will,  but  at  least 
to  use  faithless  cunning  in  subordinating  it,  saying  that 
it  was  given  to  men  for  this  purpose,  viz.,  that  they 
might  be  able  more  easily  to  fulfil  by  grace  what  they 
were  commanded  to  do  by  free  will.  By  saying, 
'  that  they  might  be  able  more  easily,'  he,  of  course, 
wished  it  to  be  believed  that,  although  with  more  diffi- 
culty, nevertheless  men  were  able  without  Divine 
grace  to  perform  the  Divine  commands.  But  they  say 
that  the  grace  of  God,  without  which  we  can  do  noth- 
ing good,  does  not  exist  except  in  free  will,  which 
without  any  preceding  merits  our  nature  received 
from  Him  ;  and  that  He  adds  His  aid  only  that  by 
His  law  and  teaching  we  may  learn  what  we  ought  to 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN    THE   CONTROVERSY.      119 

do,  but  not  that  by  the  gift  of  His  Spirit  we  may  do 
what  we  have  learned  ought  to  be  done.  Accord- 
ingly, they  allow  that  knowledge,  by  which  ignorance 
is  banished,  is  divinely  given  to  us,  but  deny  that  love, 
by  which  we  may  live  a  pious  life,  is  given  ;  so  that, 
forsooth,  while  knowledge,  which  without  love  puff- 
eth  up,  is  the  gift  of  God,  love  itself,  which  edifieth  so 
that  knowledge  may  not  puff  up,  is  not  the  gift  of  God 
(1  Cor.  viii.  11).  They  also  destroy  the  prayers  which 
the  Church  offers,  whether  for  those  that  are  unbeliev- 
ing and  resist  God's  teaching,  that  they  may  be  con- 
verted to  God  ;  or  for  the  faithful,  that  faith  may  be 
increased  in  them  and  they  may  persevere  in  it.  For 
they  contend  that  men  do  not  receive  these  things 
from  Him  but  we  have  them  from  ourselves,  saying 
that  the  grace  of  God  by  which  we  are  freed  from  im- 
piety is  given  according  to  our  merits.  Pelagius  was, 
no  doubt,  compelled  to  condemn  this  by  his  fear  of 
being  condemned  by  the  episcopal  judgment  in  Pales- 
tine ;  but  he  is  found  to  teach  it  still  in  his  later  writ- 
ings. They  also  go  so  far  as  to  say  that  the  life  of  the 
righteous  in  this  world  is  without  sin,  and  the  Church 
of  Christ  is  perfected  by  them  in  this  mortality  to  the 
point  of  being  entirely  without  spot  or  wrinkle  (Eph. 
v.  27)  ;  as  if  it  were  not  the  Church  of  Christ,  that,  in 
the  whole  world,  cries  to  God,  '  Forgive  us  our  debts.' 
They  also  deny  that  children,  who  are  carnally  born 
after  Adam,  contract  the  contagion  of  ancient  death 
from  their  first  birth.  For  they  assert  that  they  are 
so  born  without  any  bond  of  original  sin,  that  there  is 
absolutely  nothing  that  ought  to  be  remitted  to  them 
in  the  second  birth  ;  yet  the}r  are  to  be  baptized,  but 
only  that,  adopted  in  regeneration,  they  may  be  ad- 
mitted to  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  thus  be  translated 
from  good  into  better, — not  that  they  may  be  washed 
by  that  renovation  from  any  evil  of  the  old  bond.  For 
although  they  be  not  baptized,  they  promise  to  them, 
outside  the  kingdom  of  God  indeed,  but  nevertheless, 
a  certain  eternal  and  blessed  life  of  their  own.  They 
also  say  that  Adam  himself,  even  had  he  not  sinned, 
would  have  died  in  the  body,  and  that  this  death  would 


120  AUGUSTINE  AND    THE   PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY. 

not  have  come  as  a  penalty  to  a  fault,  but  as  a  condi- 
tion of  nature.  Certain  other  things  also  are  objected 
to  them,  but  these  are  the  chief,  and  moreover  either 
all,  or  nearly  all,  the  others  may  be  understood  to  de- 
pend on  these." 

The  Treatise  ' '  On  the  Predestination  of  the  Saints. 

The  composition  of  the  work  On  Heresies  was  not, 
however,  the  only  interruption  which  postponed  the 
completion  of  the  second  elaborate  work  against 
Julian.  It  was  in  the  providence  of  God  that  the 
later  energies  of  this  great  leader  in  the  battle  for 
grace  should  be  expended  in  dealing  with  the  subtler 
forms  of  error,  as  exhibited  in  semi- Pelagianism.  We 
have  seen  his  attention  being  already  called  to  modi- 
fications of  Pelagianism  of  this  sort.  And  now  infor- 
mation as  to  the  rise  of  this  new  form  of  the  heresy  at 
Marseilles  and  elsewhere  in  Southern  Gaul  was  con- 
veyed to  him  along  with  entreaties  that,  as  "  faith's 
great  patron,"  he  would  give  his  aid  towards  meeting 
it,  by  two  laymen  with  whom  he  had  already  had  cor- 
respondence,— Prosper  and  Hilary.1 

They  pointed  out2  the  difference  between  the  new 
party  and  thoroughgoing  Pelagianism  ;  but,  at  the 
same  time,  the  essentially  Pelagianizing  character  of 
its  formative  elements.  Its  representatives  were  ready, 
as  a  rule,  to  admit  that  all  men  were  lost  in  Adam,  and 
that  no  one  could  recover  himself  by  his  own  free  will 
but  all  needed  God's  grace  for  salvation.  But  they  ob- 
jected to  the  doctrines  of  prevenient  and  of  irresistible 
grace  ;  and  they  asserted  that  man  could  initiate  the 
process  of  salvation  by  turning  first  to  God,  and  that 
all  men  could  resist  God's  grace  and  no  grace  could 
be  given  which  they  could  not  reject ;  and  especially 
they  denied  that  the  gifts  of  grace  came  irrespective 
of  merits,  actual  or  foreseen.  They  affirmed  that  what 
Augustine  taught  as  to  the  calling  of  God's  elect  ac- 

'  Compare  Epistles  225,  1,  and  156.  It  is,  of  course,  not  certain 
that  this  is  the  same  Hilary  that  wrote  to  Augustine  from  Sicily,  but 
it  seems  probable. 

2  Letters  225,  and  226. 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN    THE    CONTROVERSY.     121 

cording-  to  His  own  purpose  was  tantamount  to  fatal- 
ism, was  contrary  to  the  teaching  of  the  fathers  and 
the  true  Church  doctrine,  and,  even  if  true,  should 
not  be  preached,  because  of  its  tendency  to  drive  men 
into  indifference  or  despair.  Hence,  Prosper  espe- 
cially desired  Augustine  to  point  out  the  dangerous 
nature  of  these  views,  and  to  show  that  prevenient  and 
co-operating  grace  is  not  inconsistent  with  free  will, 
that  God's  predestination  is  not  founded  on  foresight 
of  receptivity  in  its  objects,  and  that  the  doctrines  of 
grace  may  be  preached  without  danger  to  souls. 

Augustine's  answer  to  these  appeals  was  a  work  in 
two  books,  On  the  Predestination  of  the  Saints,  the  sec- 
ond book  of  which  is  usually  known  under  the  separate 
title  of  The  Gift  of  Perseverance. 

The  former  book  begins  with  a  careful  discrimina- 
tion of  the  position  of  his  new  opponents.  They  have 
made  a  right  beginning  in  that  they  believe  in  original 
sin  and  acknowledge  that  none  are  saved  from  it  save 
by  Christ,  and  that  God's  grace  leads  men's  wills,  and 
without  grace  no  one  can  suffice  for  good  deeds. 
These  things  will  furnish  a  good  starting-point  for 
their  progress  to  an  acceptance  of  predestination  also 
(1-2).  The  first  question  that  needs  discussion  in  such 
circumstances  is,  whether  God  gives  the  very  begin- 
nings of  faith  (3  sq.).  Thej'  admit  that  what  Augus- 
tine had  previously  urged  suffices  to  prove  that  faith 
is  the  gift  of  God  so  far  as  that  the  increase  of  faith  is 
given  by  Him  ;  but  they  deny  that  it  will  prove  that 
the  beginning  of  faith  may  not  be  understood  to  be 
man's,  to  which,  then,  God  adds  all  other  gifts  (com- 
pare 43).  Augustine  insists  that  this  contention  is  no 
other  than  a  repetition  of  the  Pelagian  assertion  of 
grace  according  to  merit  (3),  that  it  is  opposed  to 
Scripture  (4-5),  and  that  it  begets  arrogant  boasting  in 
ourselves  (6).  He  replies  to  the  charge  that  he  had 
himself  once  held  this  view,  by  confessing  it,  and  ex- 
plaining that  he  was  converted  from  it  by  1  Cor.  iv.  7, 
as  applied  by  Cyprian  (7-8)  ;  and  he  then  expounds 
that  verse  as  containing  in  its  narrow  compass  a  suffi- 
cient answer  to  the  present  theories  (9—1 1).     He  an- 


122  AUGUSTINE  AND    THE    PELAGIAN   CONTROVERSY. 

swers,  further,  the  objection  that  the  apostle  distin- 
guishes faith  from  works,  and  works  alone  are  meant 
in  such  passages,  by  pointing  to  John  vi.  28,  and  sim- 
ilar statements  in  Paul  (12-16).  Then  he  answers  the 
objection  that  he  himself  had  previously  taught  that 
God  acted  on  foresight  of  faith,  by  showing  that  he 
was  misunderstood  (17-18).  He  next  shows  that,  no 
objection  lies  against  predestination  that  does  not  lie 
with  equal  force  against  grace  (19-22), — since  predes- 
tination is  nothing  but  God's  foreknowledge  of  and 
preparation  for  grace,  and  all  questions  of  sovereignty 
and  the  like  belong  to  grace.  Did  God  not  know  to 
whom  He  was  going  to  give  faith  (19)?  Or  did  He 
promise  the  results  of  faith,  works,  without  promising 
the  faith  without  which,  as  going  before,  the  works 
were  impossible?  Would  not  this  place  God's  fulfil- 
ment of  His  promise  out  of  His  power,  and  make  it 
depend  on  man  (20)?  Why  are  men  more  willing  to 
trust  in  their  weakness  than  in  God's  strength  ?  Do 
they  count  God's  promises  more  uncertain  than  their 
own  performance  (22)?  He  next  proves  the  sover- 
eignty of  grace,  and  of  predestination  which  is  but  the 
preparation  for  grace,  by  the  striking  examples  of  in- 
fants, and,  above  all,  ol  the  human  nature  of  Christ 
(23-31),  and  then  speaks  of  the  twofold  calling,  one  ex- 
ternal and  one  "  according  to  purpose," — the  latter  of 
which  is  efficacious  and  sovereign  (32-37).  In  closing, 
the  semi-Pelagian  position  is  carefully  defined  and  re- 
futed as  opposed,  alike  with  the  grosser  Pelagianism, 
to  the  Scriptures  of  both  Testaments  (38-42). 

The  Treatise  ' '  On  the  Gift  of  Perseverance. 

The  purpose  of  the  second  book,  which  has  come 
down  to  us  under  the  separate  title  of  On  the  Gift  of 
Perseverance,  is  to  show  that  that  perseverance  which 
endures  to  the  end  is  as  much  of  God  as  the  beginning 
of  faith,  and  that  no  man  who  has  been  "  called  accord- 
ing to  God's  purpose"  and  has  received  this  gift,  can 
fall  from  grace  and  be  lost. 

The  first  half  of  the  treatise  is  devoted  to  this  theme 
(1-33).     It  begins  by  distinguishing  between  temporary 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN    THE    CONTROVERSY.      123 

perseverance  which  endures  for  a  time,  and  that  per- 
severance which  continues  to  the  end  (1),  and  by  affirm- 
ing that  the  latter  is  certainly  a  gift  of  God's  grace, 
and  is,  therefore,  asked  from  God  :  which  would  other- 
wise be  but  a  mocking  petition  (2-3).  This,  the  Lord's 
Prayer  itself  might  teach  us,  as  under  Cyprian's  ex- 
position it  does  teach  us, — each  petition  being  capable 
of  being  read  as  a  prayer  for  perseverance  (4-9).  Of 
course,  moreover,  it  cannot  be  lost  ;  otherwise  it 
would  not  be  "  to  the  end."  If  man  forsakes  God,  of 
course  it  is  he  that  does  it ;  and  he  is  doubtless  under 
continual  temptation  to  do  so.  But  if  man  abides  with 
God,  it  is  God  who  secures  that,  and  God  is  equally 
able  to  keep  one  when  drawn  to  Him,  as  He  is  to  draw 
him  to  Him  (10-15).  He  argues  anew  at  this  point, 
that  grace  is  not  according  to  merit  but  always  in 
mercy  ;  and  explains  and  illustrates  the  unsearchable 
ways  of  God  in  His  sovereign  but  merciful  dealing 
with  men  (16-25).  He  closes  this  part  of  the  treatise 
with  a  defence  of  himself  against  adverse  quotations 
from  his  early  work  on  Free  Will,  which  he  has  already 
corrected  in  his  Retractations. 

The  second  half  of  the  book  discusses  the  objections 
that  were  being  urged  against  the  preaching  of  pre- 
destination (34-62),  as  if  it  opposed  and  enervated  the 
preaching  of  the  Gospel.  He  replies  that  Paul  and 
the  apostles,  and  Cyprian  and  the  fathers,  preached 
both  together  ;  that  the  same  objections  will  lie  against 
the  preaching  of  God's  foreknowledge  and  grace  itself, 
and,  indeed,  against  preaching  any  of  the  virtues,  as, 
e.g.,  obedience,  while  declaring  them  God's  gifts.  He 
meets  the  objections  in  detail,  and  shows  that  such 
preaching  is  food  to  the  soul  and  must  not  be  withheld 
from  men  ;  but  he  explains  that  it  must  be  given 
gently,  wisely,  and  prayerfully.  The  whole  treatise 
ends  with  an  appeal  to  the  prayers  of  the  Church  as 
testifying  that  all  good  is  from  God  (63-65),  and  to  the 
great  example  of  unmerited  grace  and  sovereign  pre- 
destination in  the  choice  of  one  human  nature  without 
preceding  merit,  to  be  united  in  one  person  with  the 
Eternal    Word, — an   illustration    of    his   theme  of  the 


124  AUGUSTINE  AND    THE  PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY. 

gratuitous  grace  of  God  which  he  is  never  tired  of  ad- 
ducing (66-67). 

The  "  Unfinished  Work"  against  Julian. 

These  books  were  written  in  428-429,  and  after  their 
completion  the  unfinished  work  against  Julian  was  re- 
sumed. Alypius  had  sent  the  remaining  three  books, 
and  Augustine  slowly  toiled  on  to  the  end  of  his  reply 
to  the  sixth  book.  But  he  was  to  be  interrupted  once 
more,  and  this  time  by  the  most  serious  of  all  inter- 
ruptions. On  the  28th  of  August,  430,  while  the  Van- 
dals were  thundering  at  the  gates  of  Hippo,  he  turned 
his  face  away  from  the  strifes  of  earth — whether  theo- 
logical or  secular— and  full  of  faith  and  of  good  works 
entered  into  rest  with  the  Lord  whom  he  loved.  The 
last  work  against  Julian  was  already  one  of  the  most 
considerable  in  size  of  all  his  books,  but  it  was  never 
finished  and  retains  until  to-day  the  significant  title  of 
The  Unfinished  Work.  Augustine  had  hesitated  to  un- 
dertake this  treatise,  because  he  found  Julian's  argu- 
ments too  vapid  either  to  deserve  refutation  or  to 
afford  occasion  for  really  edifying  discourse.  Cer- 
tainly the  result  falls  below  Augustine's  usual  level  ; 
and  this  can  scarcely  be  due,  as  is  so  often  said,  to  fail- 
ing powers  and  great  age,  since  nothing  that  he  wrote 
surpasses  in  mellow  beauty  and  chastened  strength  the 
two  books  On  the  Predestination  of  the  Saints,  which 
were  written  after  four  books  of  this  work  were  com- 
pleted. 

The  plan  of  the  work  is  to  state  Julian's  arguments 
in  his  own  words,  and  to  follow  these  with  remarks. 
It  thus  takes  on  something  of  the  form  of  a  dialogue. 
It  follows  Julian's  work,  book  by  book.  The  first 
book  states  and  answers  certain  calumnies  which  Julian 
had  brought  against  Augustine  and  the  catholic  faith 
on  the  ground  of  their  confession  of  original  sin. 
Julian  had  argued  that,  since  God  is  just,  He  cannot 
impute  another's  sins  to  innocent  infants  ;  since  sin  is 
nothing  but  evil  will,  there  can  be  no  sin  in  infants 
who  are  not  yet  in  the  use  of  their  will  ;  and,  since 
the  freedom  of  will  that  is  given  to  man  consists  in  the 


AUGUSTINE'S  PART  IN    THE    CONTROVERSY.      125 

capacity  of  both  sinning  and  not  sinning,  free  will  is 
denied  to  those  who  attribute  sin  to  nature.  Augus- 
tine replies  to  these  arguments,  and  answers  certain 
objections  that  are  made  to  his  work  On  Marriage  and 
Concupiscence,  and  then  corrects  Julian's  false  explana- 
tions of  certain  Scriptures  from  John  viii.,  Rom.  vi., 
vii.,  and  2  Timothy.  The  second  book  is  a  discussion 
of  Rom.  v.  12,  which  Julian  had  tried,  like  the  other 
Pelagians,  to  explain  of  the  "  imitation"  of  Adam's 
bad  example.  The  third  book  examines  the  abuse  by 
Julian  of  certain  Old-Testament  passages — in  Deut. 
xxiv.,  2  Kings  xiv.,  Ezek.  xviii. — in  his  effort  to  show 
that  God  does  not  impute  the  father's  sins  to  the  chil- 
dren ;  as  well  as  his  similar  abuse  of  Heb.  xi.  The 
charge  of  Manicheism,  which  was  so  repetitiously 
brought  by  Julian  against  the  catholics,  is  then  exam- 
ined and  refuted.  The  fourth  book  treats  of  Julian's 
strictures  on  Augustine's  treatise  On  Marriage  and  Con- 
cupiscence ii.  4-1 1,  and  proves  from  1  John  ii.  16  that 
concupiscence  is  evil,  and  not  the  work  of  God  but  of 
the  Devil.  Augustine  argues  that  the  shame  that  ac- 
companies it  is  due  to  its  sinfulness,  and  that  there  was 
none  of  it  in  Christ  ;  also,  that  infants  are  born  obnox- 
ious to  the  first  sin,  and  that  the  corruption  of  their 
origin  is  proved  by  VVisd.  x.  10,  11.  The  fifth  book 
defends  On  Marriage  and  Concupiscence  ii.  12  sq.,  and 
argues  that  a  sound  nature  could  not  feel  shame  on 
account  of  its  members,  and  that  regeneration  is  needed 
for  what  is  generated  by  means  of  shameful  concu- 
piscence. Then  Julian's  abuse  of  1  Cor.  xv.,  Rom.  v., 
Matt.  vii.  17  and  33,  with  reference  to  On  Marriage 
and  Concupiscence  ii.  14,  20,  26,  is  discussed  ;  and  then 
the  origin  of  evil  and  God's  treatment  of  evil  in  the 
world  are  examined.  The  sixth  book  traverses  Julian's 
strictures  on  On  Marriage  and  Concupiscence  ii.  34  sq., 
and  argues  that  human  nature  was  changed  for  the 
worse  by  the  sin  of  Adam,  and  thus  was  made  not  only 
sinful  but  the  source  of  sinners  ;  and  that  the  forces 
of  free  will  by  which  man  could  at  first  do  lightly  if  he 
wished  and  refrain  from  sin  if  he  chose,  were  lost  by 
Adam's  sin.     An  attack  is  made  upon  Julian's  definition 


126  AUGUSTINE  AND    THE  PELAGIAN   CONTROVERSY. 

of  free  will  as  "  the  capacity  lor  sinning  or  not  sin- 
ning" {possibilitas  pcccandi  et  non  pcccandi')  ;  and  it  is 
shown  that  the  evils  of  this  life  are  the  punishment  of 
sin, — including,  first  of  all,  physical  death.  At  the  end, 
i  Cor.  xv.  22  is  treated. 

Although  the  great  preacher  oi  grace  was  taken 
away  by  death  before  the  completion  of  this  book,  yet 
his  work  was  not  left  incomplete.  In  the  course  of 
the  next  year  (431)  the  (Ecumenical  Council  of  Ephesus 
condemned  Pelagianism  for  the  whole  Christian  world  ; 
and  an  elaborate  treatise  against  the  pure  Pelagianism 
of  Julian  was  in  430  already  an  anachronism.  Semi- 
Pelagianism  was  yet  to  run  its  course,  and  to  work  its 
way  to  a  permanent  position  in  the  heart  of  a  corrupt 
church  ;  but  pure  Pelagianism  was  to  abate  with  the 
first  generation  of  its  advocates.  As  a  leaven  it  will, 
of  course,  persist  as  long  as  an  evil  heart  of  unbelief 
persists  among  men  :  but  under  the  leadership  of 
Augustine  the  Church  for  all  time  found  its  bearings 
with  reference  to  it,  and  henceforth  it  must  needs  as- 
sume subtler  forms  to  menace  the  dominion  of  the  doc- 
trines of  grace.  As  we  look  back  now  through  the 
almost  millennium  and  a  half  of  years  that  have  inter- 
vened since  Augustine  lived  and  wrote,  it  is  to  his 
Predestination  of  the  Saints, — a  completed,  and  well- 
completed,  treatise,  dealing  with  one  of  these  subtle 
forms  of  the  great  error  for  the  confutation  of  which 
he  had  expended  so  much  of  time  and  strength, — and 
not  to  The  Unfinished  Work,  which  was  still  engaged 
with  its  gross  form,  that  we  look  as  the  crown  and 
completion  of  his  labors  in  behalf  of  the  grace  of  God. 


THE    THEOLOGY  OF  GRACE.  1 27 


The  Theology  of  Grace. 

The  theology  which  Augustine  opposed  to  the  errors 
of  Pelagianism  is,  briefly,  the  theology  of  grace.  The 
roots  of  this  theology  were  deeply  planted  in  his  own 
experience  and  the  teaching  of  Scripture,  especially  in 
the  teaching  of  that  apostle  whom  he  delights  to  call 
' '  the  great  preacher  of  grace,"  and  to  follow  hard  after 
whom  was  his  great  desire.  The  grace  of  God  in  Jesus 
Christ,  conveyed  to  us  by  the  Holy  Spirit  and  evi- 
denced by  the  love  which  He  sheds  abroad  in  our 
hearts,  is  the  centre  about  which  his  whole  system 
revolves.1  As  over  against  the  Pelagian  exaltation  of 
nature,  he  was  never  weary  of  glorifying  grace.  And 
this  high  conception  the  more  naturally  became  the 
centre  of  his  soteriology  because  of  its  harmony  with 
the  primal  principle  of  his  whole  thinking,  which  was 
theocentric  and  grew  out  of  his  idea  of  God  as  the  im- 
manent and  vitalizing  spirit  in  whom  all  things  live, 
and  move,  and  have  their  being.3     That  God  is  the  ab- 

1  For  the  relation  of  Augustine's  doctrine  of  the  Church  to  his  doc- 
trine of  grace,  and  the  primacy  of  the  latter  in  his  thought,  see  the 
first  two  essays  in  Reuter's  Augustinische  Studien :  "'In  his  later 
years  it  was  not  the  idea  of  the  Church  as  the  institute  of  grace,  but 
that  of  predestinational  grace  that  was  the  dominating  one"  ;  "the 
doctrine  of  predestinational  grace  is  the  fundamental  datum  of  his 
religious  consciousness  ;  it  must  be  unconditionally  maintained,  and 
all  else  must  yield  to  it"  (p.  102).  The  ecclesiastical  element  was  the 
traditional  element  in  his  teaching  ;  but  as  Thomasius  points  out 
{Dogmengeschichte,  i.  495)  both  experience  and  Scripture  stood  with 
him  above  tradition.  Accordingly  Harnack  tells  us  truly  {Dogmen- 
geschichte iii.  87.  89)  :  "  No  Western  theologian  before  him  had  so 
lived  in  the  Scriptures  or  had  drawn  so  much  from  the  Scriptures  as 
he  ;"  and  "  as  no  Church  father  before  him,  he  brought  the  practical 
element  into  the  foreground." 

2  It  is  inexplicable  how  Professor  Allen,  in  his  Continuity  of  Chris- 
tian Thought,  can  speak  of  the  Augustinian  theology  as  resting 
"  upon  the  transcendence  of  Deity  as  its  controlling  principle"  (p.  3), 
which  is  explained  as  "a  tacit  assumption  of  deism"  (p.  171).  A. 
Dorner  (Augustinus  :  sein  theologisc/ies  System,  etc.)  also  finds 
deistic  implications  in  certain  elements  of  Augustine's  thought.  Any 
tendency  to  error  in  Augustine's  conception  of  God  lay,  however, 


128   AUGUSTINE  AND    THE   PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY. 

solute  good,  and  nothing  is  good  but  God  and  what 
comes  from  Him,  so  that  only  as  God  makes  them 
good  may  men  do  good,  was  the  foundation-stone  of  all 
his  theology.  His  doctrine  ol  grace  appears  as  but  a 
specific  application  of  this  broad  doctrine. 

The  necessity  of  grace  Augustine  argued  from  the  con- 
dition of  the  race  as  sharers  in  Adam's  sin.  God  creat- 
ed man  upright  and  endowed  him  with  human  facul- 
ties, including  free  will  ;'  and  gave  to  him  freely  that 
grace  by  which  he  was  able  to  retain  his  uprightness.2 
Being  thus  put  on  probation,3  with  divine  aid  to  enable 
him  to  stand  if  he  chose,  Adam  perversely  used  his 
free  choice  for  sinning  and  involved  his  whole  race  in 
his  fall.  It  was  on  account  of  this  sin  that  he  died 
spiritually  and  physically  ;  and  this  double  death  passes 
over  from  him  to  us.4  That  all  his  descendants  by  or- 
dinary generation  are  partakers  in  Adam's  guilt  and 
condemnation,  Augustine  is  sure  from  the  teachings  of 
Scripture.  This  is  the  fact  of  original  sin  from  which 
no  one  generated  from  Adam  is  free,  and  from  which 
no  one  is  freed  save  as  regenerated  in  Christ.5  But 
how  we  are  made  partakers  of  it,  he  is  less  certain. 
Sometimes  he  speaks  as  if  it  came  by  some  mysterious 
unity  of  the  race,  so  that  we  were  all  personally  present 
in  the  individual  Adam  and  thus  the  whole  race  was 
the  one  man  that  sinned  ;  b  sometimes  he  speaks  more 
in  the  sense  of  modern  realists,  as  if  Adam's  sin  cor- 
rupted the  nature,  and  the  nature  now  corrupts  those 
to  whom  it  is  communicated  ; 7  sometimes  he  speaks  as 
if  it  were  clue  to  simple  heredity."     More  characteris- 

in  precisely  the  opposite  direction.  Compare  Aubrey  Moore,  Lux 
Mundi,  p.  83,  and  Levi  L.  Paine,  The  New  World,  December,  1895 
(iv.  670-673). 

1  On  Rebuke  and  Grace,  27,  28. 

-  Ibid.,  29,  31,  sq. 

»  Ibid.,  28. 

4  On  t/ie  City  of  God,  xiii.  2,  12,  14  ;  On  the  Trinity,  iv.  13. 

5  On  the  Merits  and  Remission  of  Sins,  i.  15,  and  often. 

6  Against  Two  Letters  of  the  Pelagians,  iv.  7  ;  On  the  Merits 
and  Forgiveness  of  Sins,  iii.  14,  15. 

1  On  Marriage  andConcupiscence,  ii.  57  ;    On  the  City  of  God, 
xiv.  1. 

8  Against  Two  Letters  of  the  Pelagians,  iv.  7. 


THE    THEOLOGY  OF  GRACE.  129 

tically  he  speaks  as  if  it  depended  on  the  presence  of 
shameful  concupiscence  in  the  act  of  procreation,  so 
that  the  propagation  of  guilt  depends  on  the  propaga- 
tion of  offspring  by  means  of  concupiscence.1  How- 
ever transmitted,  it  is  yet  a  fact  that  sin  is  propagated, 
and  all  mankind  became  sinners  in  Adam.  The  result 
is  that  we  have  lost,  the  divine  image,  though  not  in 
such  a  sense  that  no  lineaments  of  it  remain  to  us.2 
And,  the  sinning  soul  making  the  flesh  corruptible,  our 
whole  nature  is  corrupted,  and  we  are  unable  to  do 
anything  of  ourselves  truly  good.3 

This  corruption  includes,  of  course,  an  injury  to  our 
will.  Augustine,  writing  for  the  popular  eye,  treats 
this  subject  in  popular  language.  But  it  is  clear  that 
in  his  thinking  he  distinguished  between  will  as  a 
faculty  and  will  in  a  broader  sense.  As  a  mere  faculty, 
will  is  and  always  remains  an  indifferent  thing.4  After 
the  fall,  as  before,  it  continues  poised  in  indifferency, 
and  ready,  like  a  weathercock,  to  be  turned  whither- 
soever the  breeze  that  blows  from  the  heart  ("  will," 
in  the  broader  sense)  may  direct.5  It  is  not  the  faculty 
of  willing,  but  the  man  who  makes  use  of  that  faculty, 
that  has  suffered  change  from  the  fall.  In  paradise 
man  stood  in  full  ability.  He  had  the  posse  non  peccare, 
but  not  yet  the  non  posse  peccare  ;  6  that  is,  he  was  en- 
dowed with  a  capacity  for  either  part,  and  possessed 
the  grace  of  God  by  which  he  was  able  to  stand  if  he 
would,  but  also  the  power  of  free  will  by  which  he 
might  fall  if  he  would.  By  his  fall  he  has  suffered  a 
change,  is  become  corrupt,  and  has  fallen  under  the 
power  of  Satan.  His  will  (in  the  broader  sense)  is  now 
injured,  wounded,  diseased,  enslaved — although  the 
faculty  of  will  (in  the  narrow  sense)  remains  indiffer- 
ent.    Augustine's   criticism    of    Pelasfius'    discrimina- 


1  On  Original  Sin,  42  ;  On  Marriage  and  Concupiscence,  ii.  15. 
5  Retractations,  ii.  24. 

3  Against  Julian,  iv.  3,  25,  26.     Compare  Thomasius'    Dogmen- 
geschichte,  i.  501  and  507. 

4  On  the  Spirit  and  Letter,  58. 

5  On  the  Merits  and  Forgiveness  of  Sins,  ii.  30. 

6  On  Rebuke  and  Grace,  11. 


13°   AUGUSTINE  AND    THE  PELAGIAN   CONTROVERSY. 

tion  '  of  "capacity"  {possibilitas,  posse),  "will"  {vol- 
untas, velle)  and  "  act"  {actio,  esse),  does  not  turn  on 
the  discrimination  itself,  but  on  the  incongruity  of  plac- 
ing" the  power,  ability  in  the  mere  capacity  or  possi- 
bility, rather  than  in  the  living  agent  who  "  wills"  and 
"  acts."  He  himself  adopts  an  essentially  similar  dis- 
tribution, with  only  this  correction.2  He  thus  keeps 
the  faculty  of  will  indifferent,  but  places  the  power  of 
using  it  in  the  active  agent,  man.  According,  then,  to 
the  character  of  the  man,  will  the  use  of  the  free  will 
be.  If  the  man  be  holy  he  will  make  a  holy  use  of  it, 
and  if  he  be  corrupt  he  will  make  a  sinful  use  of  it  :  if 
he  be  essentially  holy,  he  (like  God  Himself)  cannot 
make  a  sinful  use  of  his  will  ;  and  if  he  be  enslaved  to 
sin,  he  cannot  make  a  good  use  of  it.  The  last  is  the 
present  condition  of  men  by  nature.  They  have  free 
will  ; s  the  faculty  by  which  they  act  remains  in  in- 
differency,  and  they  are  allowed  to  use  it  just  as  they 
choose.  But  such  as  they  cannot  desire  and  therefore 
cannot  choose  anything  but  evil  ;  4  and  therefore  they, 
and  therefore  their  choice,  and  therefore  their  willing, 
is  always  evil  and  never  good.  They  are  thus  the 
slaves  of  sin,  which  they  obey  ;  and  while  their  free 
will  avails  for  sinning,  it  does  not  avail  for  doing  any 
good  unless  they  be  first  freed  by  the  grace  of  God. 
The  superior  depth  of  Augustine's  view  and  its  essen- 
tial harmony  with  fact  are  apparent  ;  if  "  the  will"  be 
conceived  as  simply  the  whole  man  in  the  attitude  of 
willing,  it  would  seem  to  be  immediately  evident  that, 
however  abstractly  free  the  "  will"  is,  it  is  conditioned 
in  all  its  action  by  the  character  of  the  willing  agent  :  a 
bad  man  does  not  cease  to  be  bad  in  the  act  of  willing, 
and  a  good  man  remains  good  even  in  his  acts  of 
choice. 

In  its  nature,  grace  is  assistance,  help  from  God  ;  and 
all  divine  aid  may  be  included  under  the  term — as  well 

1  On  the  Grace  of  Christ,  4  sq. 

2  On  the  Predestination  of  the  Saints,  10. 

3  Against  Two  Letters  of  the  Pelagians,  i.  5  ;  Epistle  215,  4  and 
often. 

*^*  Against  Two  Letters  of  the  Pelagians,  i.  7  ;  compare  i.  5,  6. 


THE    THEOLOGY   OF  GRACE.  131 

what  may  be  called  natural  as  what  may  be  called 
spiritual  aid.1  Spiritual  grace  includes,  no  doubt,  all 
external  help  that  God  gives  man  for  working  out  his 
salvation,  such  as  the  law,  the  preaching  of  the  gospel, 
the  example  of  Christ,  by  which  we  may  learn  the  right 
way.  It  includes  also  forgiveness  of  sins,  by  which 
we  are  freed  from  the  guilt  already  incurred.  But 
above  all  it  includes  that  help  which  God  gives  by  His 
Holy  Spirit,  working  within  not  without,  by  which 
man  is  enabled  to  choose  and  to  do  what  he  is  enabled 
by  the  teachings  of  the  law,  or  by  the  gospel,  or  by 
the  natural  conscience,  to  see  to  be  right.2  In  this 
grace  are  included  all  those  spiritual  operations  which 
we  call  regeneration,  justification,  perseverance  to  the 
end— in  a  word,  all  the  divine  assistance  by  which,  in 
being  made  Christians,  we  are  made  to  differ  from 
other  men.  Augustine  is  fond  of  representing  this 
grace  as  in  essence  the  writing  of  God's  law  (or  God's 
will)  on  our  hearts,  so  that  it  appears  hereafter  as  our 
own  desire  and  wish.  Even  more  prevalently  he 
speaks  of  it  as  the  shedding  abroad  of  love  in  our 
hearts  by  the  Holy  Ghost  given  to  us  in  Christ  Jesus. 
It  is,  therefore,  conceived  by  him  as  a  change  of  dis- 
position, by  which  we  come  to  love  and  freely  choose, 
in  co-operation  with  God's  aid,  just  the  things  which 
hitherto  we  have  been  unable  to  choose  because  of  our 
bondage  to  sin.  Grace,  thus,  does  not  make  void  free 
will.3  It  operates  through  free  will,  and  acts  upon  it 
only  by  liberating  it  from  its  bondage  to  sin — i.e.,  by 
liberating  the  agent  that  uses  the  free  will,  so  that  he 
is  no  longer  enslaved  by  his  fleshly  lusts  and  is  en- 
abled to  make  use  of  his  free  will  in  choosing  the  good. 
Thus  it  is  only  by  grace  that  free  will  is  enabled  to  act 
in  good  part. 

But  just  because  grace  changes  the  disposition,  and 
so  enables  man,  hitherto  enslaved  to  sin,  for  the  first 
time  to  desire  and  use  his  free  will  for  good,  it  lies  in 

:  Sermon  26. 

2  On  Nature  and  Grace,  62  ;  On  the  Grace  of  Christ,  13  ;  On  Re- 
bicke  and  Grace,  2  sq. 

6  On  the  Spirit  and  Letter,  52  ;  On  Grace  and  Free  Will,  1  sq. 


15-    AUGUSTINE   AND    THE  PELAGIAN   CONTROVERSY. 

the  very  nature  of  the  case  that  it  is  prevenient.1  Also, 
as  the  very  name  imports,  it  is  necessarily  gratuitous  ;  2 
since  man  is  enslaved  to  sin  until  it  is  given,  all  the 
merits  that  he  can  have  prior  to  it  are  bad  merits  and 
deserve  punishment,  not  gifts  of  favour.  When,  then, 
it  is  asked,  on  the  ground  of  what  grace  is  given,  it  can 
only  be  answered,  "  on  the  ground  of  God's  infinite 
mercy  and  undeserved  favour."  s  There  is  nothing  in 
man  to  merit  it,  and  it  first  gives  merit  of  good  to  man. 
All  men  alike  deserve  death,  and  all  that  comes  to  them 
in  the  way  of  blessing  is  necessarily  of  God's  free  and 
unmerited  favour.  This  is  true  equally  of  all  grace. 
It  is  pre-eminently  clear  of  that  grace  which  gives  faith, 
which  is  the  root  of  all  other  graces  and  which  is  given 
of  God,  not  to  merits  of  good-will  or  incipient  turning 
to  Him,  but  of  His  sovereign  good  pleasure."  But 
equally  with  faith,  it  is  true  of  all  other  divine  gifts. 
We  may,  indeed,  speak  of  "  merits  of  good"  as  suc- 
ceeding faith  ;  but  as  all  these  merits  find  their  root  in 
faith,  they  are  but  "grace  on  grace,"  and  men  need 
God's  mercy  always,  throughout  this  life,  and  even  on 
the  judgment  day  itself,  when,  if  they  are  judged  with- 
out mercy,  they  must  be  condemned.6  If  we  ask,  then, 
why  God  gives  grace,  we  can  only  answer  that  it  is  of 
His  unspeakable  mercy.  And  if  we  ask  why  He  gives 
it  to  one  rather  than  to  another,  what  can  we  answer 
but  that  it  is  of  His  will  ?  The  sovereignty  of  grace  re- 
sults from  its  very  gratuitousness  :  °  where  none  de- 
serve it,  it  can  be  given  only  of  the  sovereign  good 
pleasure  of  the  great  Giver — and  this  is  necessarily  in- 
scrutable, but  cannot  be  unjust.  We  can  faintly  per- 
ceive, indeed,  some  reason  why  God  may  be  supposed 
not  to  have  chosen  to  give  His  saving  grace  to  all,7  or 


1  On  the  Spirit  and  Letter,  60,  and  often. 
8  On  Nature  and  Grace,  4,  and  often. 
8  On  the  Grace  of  Christ,  27,  and  often. 

4  Ibid.,  34,  and  often. 

5  On  Grace  and  Free  Will,  21. 

6  Ibid.,  30,  and  often. 

7  On  the  Gift  of  Perseverance,  16  ;  Against  Two  Letters  of  the 
Pelagians,  ii.  15. 


THE    THEOLOGY   OF  GRACE.  133 

even  to  the  most.1  But  we  cannot  understand  why  He 
has  chosen  to  give  it  to  just  the  individuals  to  whom 
He  has  given  it,  and  to  withhold  it  from  just  those  from 
whom  He  has  withheld  it.  Here  we  are  driven  to  the 
apostle's  cry,  "  O  the  depth  of  the  riches  both  of  the 
mercy  and  the  justice  of  God  !"  " 

The  effects  of  grace  are  according  to  its  nature.  Taken 
as  a  whole,  it  is  the  recreative  principle  sent  forth  from 
God  for  the  recovery  of  man  from  his  slavery  to  sin 
and  for  his  reformation  in  the  divine  image.  Consid- 
ered as  to  the  time  of  its  giving,  it  is  either  operating  or 
co-operating3  grace,  i.e.,  either  the  grace  that  first  en- 
ables the  will  to  choose  the  good,  or  the  grace  that  co- 
operates with  the  already  enabled  will  to  do  the  good. 
It  is,  therefore,  also  called  either  prevenient  or  subse- 
quent grace.4  It  is  not  to  be  conceived  as  a  series  of 
disconnected  divine  gifts,  but  as  one  unbroken  work  of 
God.  But  we  may  look  upon  it  in  the  various  steps  of 
its  operation  in  men,  as  bringing  forgiveness  of  sins, 
faith,  which  is  the  beginning  of  all  good,  love  to  God, 
progressive  power  of  good  working,  and  perseverance 
to  the  end.5  In  any  case,  and  in  all  its  operations 
alike,  just  because  it  is  power  from  on  high  and  the 
living  spring  of  a  new  and  re-created  life,  it  is  irresisti- 
ble and  indefectible*  Those  on  whom  the  Lord  bestows 
the  gift  of  faith,  working  from  within,  not  from  with- 
out, of  course  have  faith  and  cannot  help  believing. 
Those  to  whom  perseverance  to  the  end  is  given  will 
assuredly  persevere  to  the  end.  It  is  not  to  be  object- 
ed to  this  that  many  seem  to  begin  well  who  do  not 
persevere.  This  also  is  of  God,  who  has  in  such  cases 
given  great  blessings  indeed,  but  not  this  blessing  of 
perseverance  to  the  end.  Whatever  of  good  men  have, 
that  God  has  given.     And  what  they  have  not,  why, 

1  Epistle  to  Optatus,  190. 

2  On  the  Predestination  of  the  Saints,  17,  18. 

3  On  Grace  and  Free  Will,  33,  and  often. 

4  On  Grace  and  Free  Will,  17  ;  On  the  Proceedings  of  Pelagius, 
34,  and  often. 

5  Compare  Thomasius'  Dog7nengeschichte,  i.  510. 

6  On  Rebuke  and  Grace,  40,  45  ;  On  the  Predestination  of  the 
Saints,  13. 


134   AUGUSTINE  AND    THE  PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY. 

of  course  God  has  not  given  it.  Nor  can  it  be  object- 
ed that  this  leaves  all  uncertain.  It  is  only  unknown 
to  us  ;  but  this  does  not  argue  uncertainty.  We  can- 
not know  that  we  are  to  have  any  gift  which  God  sov- 
ereignly gives,  of  course,  until  it  is  given  ;  and  we 
therefore  cannot  know  that  we  have  perseverance  unto 
the  end  until  we  actually  persevere  to  the  end.1  But 
who  would  call  uncertain  what  God  does  and  knows 
He  is  to  do,  and  what  man  is  to  do  certain  ?  Nor  will 
it  do  to  say  that  thus  nothing  is  left  for  us  to  do.  No 
doubt,  all  things  are  in  God's  hands  and  we  should 
praise  God  that  this  is  so,  but  we  must  respond  to  His 
touch  ;  and  it  is  just  because  it  is  He  that  is  working  in 
us  the  willing  and  the  doing,  that  it  is  worth  our  while 
to  work  out  our  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling. 
God  has  not  determined  the  end  without  determining 
the  appointed  means.2 

Now,  Augustine  argues,  since  grace  certainly  is 
gratuitous  and  given  to  no  preceding  merits,  pre- 
venient  and  antecedent  to  all  good,  and,  therefore, 
sovereign  and  bestowed  only  on  those  whom  God  se- 
lects for  its  reception — we  must,  of  course,  believe  that 
the  eternal  God  has  foreknown  all  this  from  the  begin- 
ning. He  would  be  something  less  than  God,  had  He 
not  foreknown  that  He  intended  to  bestow  this  pre- 
venient,  gratuitous  and  sovereign  grace  on  some  men, 
and  had  He  not  foreknown  equally  the  precise  indi- 
viduals on  whom  He  intended  to  bestow  it.  To  fore- 
know is  to  prepare  beforehand.  And  this  is  predestina- 
tion.2 He  argues  that  there  can  be  no  objection  to 
predestination,  in  itself  considered,  in  the  mind  of  any 
man  who  believes  in  God.  What  men  object  to  is 
gratuitous  and  sovereign  grace  :  and  to  this  no  addi- 
tional difficulty  is  added  by  the  necessary  assumption 
that  it  was  foreknown  and  prepared  for  from  eternity. 
That  predestination  does  not  proceed  on  the  foreknowl- 
edge of  good  or  of  faith,4  follows  from  its  being  noth- 

1  On  Rebuke  and  Grace,  40. 

2  On  the  Gift  of  Perseverance,  56. 

3  On  the  Predestination  of  the  Saints,  36  sq. 

4  On  the  Gift  of  Perseveratice,  41  sq.,  47. 


THE    THEOLOGY  OF  GRACE.  135 

ing  more  than  the  foresight  and  preparation  of  grace, 
which,  in  its  very  idea,  is  gratuitous  and  not  according 
to  any  merits,  sovereign  and  according  only  to  God's 
purpose,  prevenient  and  in  order  to  faith  and  good 
works.  It  is  the  sovereignty  of  grace,  not  its  foresight 
or  the  preparation  for  it,  which  places  men  in  God's 
hands  and  suspends  salvation  absolutely  on  His  un 
merited  mercy.  But  just  because  God  is  God,  of 
course  no  one  receives  grace  who  has  not  been  fore- 
known and  afore-selected  for  the  gift  ;  and,  as  much  of 
course,  no  one  who  has  been  foreknown  and  afore- 
selected  for  it,  fails  to  receive  it.  Therefore  the  num- 
ber of  the  predestinated  is  fixed,  and  fixed  by  God.1 
Is  this  fate?  Men  may  call  God's  grace  fate  if  they 
choose  ;  but  it  is  not  fate,  but  undeserved  love  and 
tender  mercy,  without  which  none  would  be  saved.2 
Does  it  paralyze  effort  ?  Only  to  those  who  will  not 
strive  to  obey  God  because  obedience  is  His  gift.  Is 
it  unjust  ?  Far  from  it  :  shall  not  God  do  what  He 
will  with  His  own  undeserved  favour  ?  It  is  nothing 
but  gratuitous  mercy,  sovereignly  distributed,  and  fore- 
seen and  provided  for  from  all  eternity  by  Him  who 
has  selected  us  in  His  Son. 

Augustine's  doctrine  of  the  means  of  grace,  i.e.,  of  the 
channels  and  circumstances  of  the  conference  of  grace 
upon  men,  is  the  meeting  point  of  two  very  dissimilar 
streams  of  thought — his  doctrine  of  grace  and  his  doc- 
trine of  the  Church.  Profound  thinker  as  he  was, 
within  whose  active  mind  was  born  an  incredible  mul- 
titude of  the  richest  conceptions,  he  was  not  primarily 
a  systematiser,  and  these  divergent  streams  of  thought 
rather  conditioned  each  the  purity  of  the  other's  devel- 
opment at  this  point  than  were  thoroughly  harmonized.' 

1  On  Rebuke  and  Grace,  39  ;  compare  14. 

2  On  the  Gift  of  Perseverance,  29  ;  Against  Two  Letters  of  the 
Pelagians,  ii.  9  sq. 

8  Says  Harnack  (Vogmengesehichte,  in.  90):  "In  conflict  with 
Manicheanism  and  Donatism,  Augustine  acquired  a  doctrine  of  free- 
dom, of  the  Church  and  of  the  means  of  grace  which  has  little  in  com- 
mon with  his  experience  of  sin  and  grace,  and  is  in  open  strife  with 
the  theological  development  of  this  experience  (doctrine  of  predesti- 
national  grace).     It  is  possible  even  to  draw  out  a  double  theology  of 


136   AUGUSTINE   AND    THE  PELAGIAN   CONTROVERSY. 

He  does  not,  indeed,  bind  the  conference  of  grace  to 
the  means  in  such  a  sense  that  the  grace  must  be  given 
at  the  exact  time  of  the  application  of  the  means.  He 
does  not  deny  that  "  God  is  able,  even  when  no  man 
rebukes,  to  correct  whom  He  will,  and  to  lead  him  on 
to  the  wholesome  mortification  of  repentance  by  the 
most  hidden  and  most  mighty  power  of  His  medicine."  J 
Though  the  Gospel  must  be  known  in  order  that  man 
may  be  saved  2  (for  how  shall  they  believe  without  a 
preacher  ?),  yet  the  preacher  is  nothing  and  the  preach- 
ment is  nothing,  but  God  only  that  gives  the  increase.3 
He  even  has  something  like  a  distant  glimpse  of  what 
has  since  been  called  the  distinction  between  the  visible 
and  invisible  Church.  He  speaks  of  men  not  yet  born 
as  among  those  who  are  "  called  according  to  God's 
purpose"  and  therefore  of  the  saved  who  constitute 
the  Church,4  and  asserts  that  those  who  are  so  called, 
even  before  they  believe,  are  "  already  children  of  God, 
enrolled  in  the  memorial  of  their  Father  with  unchange- 
able surety."  5  At  the  same  time,  he  allows  that  there 
are  many  already  in  the  visible  Church  who  are  not  of 
it,  and  who  can  therefore  depart  from  it.  But  he 
teaches  that  those  who  are  thus  lost  out  of  the  visible 
Church  are  lost  because  of  some  fatal  flaw  in  their  bap- 
tism, or  on  account  of  post-baptismal  sins  ;  and  that 
those  who  are  of  the  "  called  according  to  the  pur- 
pose" are  predestinated  not  onty  to  salvation,  but  to 
salvation  by  baptism.  Grace  is  not  tied  to  the  means 
in  the  sense  that  it  is  not  conferred  save  in  the  means  ; 
but  it  is  tied  to  the  means  in  the  sense  that  it  is  not  con- 
ferred without  the  means.  Baptism,  for  instance,  is 
absolutely  necessary  for  salvation  :  no  exception  is  al- 
lowed except  such  as  save  the  principle — baptism  of 
blood  (martyrdom),6  and,  somewhat  grudgingly,  bap- 
Augustine,  an  Ecclesiastics  and  a  Doctrine  of  Grace,  and  to  present 
the  whole  in  both." 

'  On  Rebuke  and  Grace,  1. 

2  On  the  Predestitzation  of  the  Saints,  17,  18  ;  if  the  gospel  is  not 
preached  at  any  given  place,  it  is  proof  that  God  has  no  elect  there. 

3  On  the  Merits  and  Forgiveness  of  Sins,  etc.,  ii.  37. 

4  On  Rebuke  and  Grace,  23. 
8  Ibid.,  20. 

6  On  the  Soul  and  its  Origin,  i.  11  ;  ii.  17, 


THE    THEOLOGY  OF  GRACE.  137 

tism  of  intention.  And  baptism,  when  worthily  re- 
ceived, is  absolutely  efficacious  :  "  if  a  man  were  to  die 
immediately  after  baptism,  he  would  have  nothing  at 
all  left  to  hold  him  liable  to  punishment."  '  In  a  word, 
while  there  are  many  baptized  who  will  not  be  saved, 
there  are  none  saved  who  have  not  been  or  are  not  to 
be  baptized  ;  it  is  the  grace  of  God  that  saves,  but  bap- 
tism is  a  channel  of 
actually  receive  it.'2 

One  of  the  corollaries  that  flowed  from  this  doctrine 
was  that  by  which  Augustine  was  led  to  assert  that  all 
those  who  died  unbaptized,  including  infants,  are 
finally  lost  and  depart  into  eternal  punishment.  He 
did  not  shrink  from  the  inference,  although  he  assigned 
the  place  of  lightest  punishment  in  hell  to  those  who 
were  guilty  of  no  sin  but  original  sin,  but  who  had  de- 
parted this  life  without  having  washed  this  away  in  the 
"  laver  of  regeneration."  This  is  the  dark  side  of  his 
soteriology.  But  it  should  be  remembered  that  it  was 
not  his  theology  of  grace,  but  the  universal  and  tradi- 
tional belief  in  the  necessity  of  baptism  for  remission  of 
sins,  which  he  inherited  in  common  with  all  of  his  time, 
that  forced  it  upon  him.  The  theology  of  grace  was 
destined  in  the  hands  of  his  successors,  who  have  re- 
joiced to  confess  that  they  were  taught  by  him,  to  re- 
move this  stumbling-block  also  from  Christian  teach- 
ing ;  and  if  not  to  Augustine,  it  is  to  Augustine's 
theology  that  the  Christian  world  owes  its  liberation 
from  so  terrible  a  tenet.  Along  with  the  doctrine  of 
the  damnation  of  all  unbaptized  infants,  another  stum- 
bling-block also,  not  so  much  of  Augustinian  as  of 
the  Church  theology  inherited  by  Augustine,  has 
gone.  It  was  not  because  of  his  theology  of  grace  or 
of  his  doctrine  of  predestination,  that  iVugustine  taught 
that  comparatively  few  of  the  human  race  are  saved. 
It  was,  again,  because  as  a  good  churchman  of  his  day 
he  believed  that  baptism  and  incorporation  into  the 
visible  Church  were  necessary  for  salvation.     And  it  is 

1  On  the  Merits  and  Forgiveness  of  Sins,  etc.,  ii.  46. 

2  On  Augustine's  teaching  as  to  baptism,  see  Rev.  James  Field 
Spalding's  The  Teaching  and  Influence  of  Augustine,  pp.  39  sq. 


138   AUGUSTINE   AND    THE   PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY. 

only  because  of  Augustine's  theology  of  grace,  which 
places  man  in  the  hands  of  an  all-merciful  Saviour  and 
not  in  the  grasp  of  a  human  institution,  that  men  have 
come  to  see  that,  in  the  salvation  of  all  who  die  in 
infancy,  the  invisible  Church  of  God  embraces  the 
majority  of  the  human  race — saved  not  by  the  washing 
of  water  administered  by  the  Church,  but  by  the  blood 
of  Christ  administered  by  God's  own  hand  outside  of 
the  ordinary  channels  of  His  grace.1  We  are  indeed 
born  in  sin,  and  those  that  die  in  infancy  are,  in  Adam, 
children  of  wrath  even  as  others  ;  but  God's  hand  is 
not  shortened  by  the  limits  ol  His  Church  on  earth 
that  it  cannot  save. 

Despite  the  strong  churchly  element  within  the  the- 
ology of  Augustine,  the  development  of  which  has  pro- 
duced the  ecclesiasticism  of  Romish  thought,  it  must  be 
admitted  that,  on  the  side  that  is  presented  in  the  con- 
troversy against  Pelagianism,  it  is  in  its  essence  dis- 
tinctly anti-ecclesiastical.  Its  central  thought  was  the 
immediate  dependence  of  the  individual  on  the  grace  of 
God  in  Jesus  Christ.  It  made  everything  that  con- 
cerned salvation  to  be  of  God,  and  traced  the  source  of 
all  good  to  Him.  "  Without  me  ye  can  do  nothing," 
is  the  inscription  on  one  side  of  it  ;  on  the  other  stands 
written,  "  All  things  are  yours."  Augustine  held  that 
he  who  builds  on  a  human  foundation  builds  on  sand, 
and  founded  all  his  hope  on  the  Rock  itself.  And 
there  also  he  founded  his  teaching  ;  as  he  distrusted 
man  in  the  matter  of  salvation,  so  he  distrusted  him  in 
the  form  of  theology.  No  other  of  the  fathers  so  con- 
scientiously wrought  out  his  theology  from  the  re- 
vealed Word  ;  no  other  of  them  so  sternly  excluded 
human  additions.  The  subjects  of  which  theology 
treats,  he  declares,  are  such  as  "  we  could  by  no  means 
find  out  unless  we  believed  them  on  the  testimony  of 
Holy  Scripture."  Q  "Where  Scripture  gives  no  cer- 
tain testimony,"  he  says,  "  human  presumption  must 


1  This  is  shown  in  the  accompanying  essay  on   The  Develop7nent 
of  the  Doctrine  of  Infant  Salvation. 
*  On  the  Soul  and  its  Origin,  iv.  14. 


THE    THEOLOGY  OF  GRACE.  139 

beware  how  it  decides  in  favor  of  either  side."  '  "  We 
must  first  bend  our  necks  to  the  authority  of  Scrip- 
ture," he  insists,  "  in  order  that  we  may  arrive  at 
knowledge  and  understanding' through  faith."2  And 
this  was  not  merely  his  theory,  but  his  practice.3  No 
theology  was  ever,  it  may  be  more  broadly  asserted, 
more  conscientiously  wrought  out  from  the  Scriptures 
than  that  which  he  opposed  to  the  Pelagians.  It  is  not 
without  its  shortcomings.  But  its  errors  are  on  the 
surface  and  not  of  its  essence.  It  name  from  God,  and 
it  leads  to  God  ;  and  in  the  midst  of  the  controversies 
of  so  many  ages  it  has  shown  itself  an  edifice  whose 
solid  core  is  built  out  of  material  "  which  cannot  be 
shaken." 

1  On  the  Merits  and  Forgiveness  of  Sins,  etc.,  ii.  59. 

*  Ibid.,  i.  29. 

3  Compare  On  the  Spirit  and  the  Letter,  63. 


II. 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  DOCTRINE 
OF   INFANT   SALVATION. 


THE    DEVELOPMENT    OF   THE    DOCTRINE 
OF   INFANT  SALVATION. 


The  task  which  we  set  before  us  in  this  brief  paper 
is  not  to  unravel  the  tangled  skein  of  the  history  of 
opinion  as  to  the  salvation  of  those  who  die  in  infancy. 
We  propose  to  ourselves  only  the  much  more  circum- 
scribed undertaking  of  tracing  the  development  of  doc- 
trine on  this  subject.  We  hope  to  show  that  there  has 
been  a  doctrine  as  to  the  salvation  of  infants,  dying 
such,  common  to  all  ages  of  the  Church.  And  we 
hope  to  show  that  there  has  taken  place  with  reference 
to  this,  as  with  reference  to  other  doctrines,  a  progres- 
sive correction  of  crudities  in  its  conception,  by  which 
the  true  meaning  and  relations  of  the  common  teach- 
ing have  been  more  and  more  freed  from  deforming 
accretions  and  its  permanenl  core  brought  to  ever 
purer  expression.  As  the  result  of  this  process,  as  we 
hope  to  show,  the  Church  has  found  its  way  to  a  toler- 
ably complete  understanding  of  the  teaching  of  the 
Scriptures  upon  this  important  subject.  Those  por- 
tions ol  the  Church  which  have  chosen  to  sit  still  in 
the  darkness  of  mediaevalism  will  have  advanced,  to  be 
sure,  but  a  little  way  into  this  fuller  and  better  appre- 
hension. Those  portions  of  the  Church  which  have 
elected  to  light  their  path  more  or  less  by  the  rush- 


144  THE  DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

light  of  reason,  rather  than  by  the  sun  of  revelation, 
have  naturally  wandered  more  or  less  aside  from  it. 
But  wherever  the  Word  of  God  has  been  the  constant 
study  of  the  Church,  the  darkness  of  this  problem 
too  has  measurably  given  way  before  its  light  ;  and 
where  the  apprehension  of  scriptural  truth  in  general 
has  become  most  pure,  there  the  depths  of  this  doc- 
trine too  have  been  most  thoroughly  sounded  and  its 
relations  most  perfectly  perceived. 

The  Patristic  Doctrine. 

It  is  fundamental  to  the  very  conception  of  Chris- 
tianity that  it  is  a  remedial  scheme.  Christ  Jesus  came 
to  save  sinners.  The  first  Christians  had  no  difficulty 
in  understanding  and  confessing  that  Christ  had  come 
into  a  world  lost  in  sin  to  establish  a  kingdom  of  right- 
eousness, citizenship  in  which  is  the  condition  of  sal- 
vation. That  infants  were  admitted  into  this  citizen- 
ship they  did  not  question.  When  the  Apologist  Aris- 
tides,  for  example,  would  make  known  to  the  heathen 
how  Christians  looked  upon  death,  he  did  not  confine 
himself  to  saying  that  "  if  any  righteous  person  of  their 
number  passes  away  from  the  world,  they  rejoice  and 
give  thanks  to  God  and  follow  his  body  as  if  he  were 
moving  from  one  place  to  another,"  but  adds  of  the 
infant,  for  whose  birth  they  (unlike  many  of  the 
heathen)  praised  God,  "  if,  again,  it  chance  to  die  in 
its  infancy,  they  praise  God  mightily,  as  tor  one  who 
has  passed  through  the  world  without  sins."1  Nor  did 
those  early  Christians  doubt  that  the  sole  gateway  into 
this  heavenly  citizenship,  for  infants  too,  was  not  the 
natural  birth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  new  birth  of  the 
Spirit.  Communion  with  God  and  the  inheritance  of 
life  had  been  lost  for  all  alike,  and  to  infants  too  were 
restored  only  in  Christ.  To  lrenseus,  for  example,  it 
seems  appropriate  that  Christ  was  born  an  infant  and 
grew  by   natural   stages   into   manhood,   since,  as   he 

1  Helen  B.  Harris,  The  Newly  Discovered  Apology  of  Art's  tides, 
London,  1891,  p.  108. 


THE  PATRISTIC  DOCTRINE.  145 

says,  "  He  came  to  save  all  by  Himself — all,  I  say, 
who  by  Him  are  born  again  unto  God,  infants  and  chil- 
dren, and  boys  and  young  men,  and  old  men,"  and 
accordingly  passed  through  every  age  that  He  might 
sanctify  all.1 

Less  pure  elements,  however,  entered  inevitably 
into  their  thought.  The  ingrained  legalism  of  both 
Jewish  and  heathen  conceptions  of  religion,  when 
brought  into  the  Church,  quite  obscured  for  a  time 
the  doctrines  of  grace.  It  seemed  for  a  season  almost 
as  if  Christ  had  died  in  vain,  and  as  if  Paul's  whole 
proclamation  of  a  free  salvation  had  borne  no  fruit. 
Men  persisted  in  looking  for  salvation  by  the  works  of 
the  law,  and  found  no  ground  of  trust  save  in  their 
own  virtues.  In  this  atmosphere  the  problem  of  the 
death  of  little  children  became  an  insoluble  one. 
Dying  before  they  had  acquired  merit,  either  good  or 
bad,  it  seemed  equally  impossible  to  assign  to  them 
reward  or  punishment.  Even  a  Gregory  Nazianzen 
affirmed  that  they  could  be  ' '  neither  glorified  nor 
punished"8 — that  is,  probably,  that  they  went  into  a 
middle  state  similar  to  that  taught  by  Pelagius.  A 
heretical  sect  arose,  called  the  Hieracitas  from  their 
master  Hierax,  who,  arguing  that  if  one  who  strives 
cannot  be  crowned  unless  he  strives  lawfully  it  would 
be  absurd  to  crown  one  who  had  not  striven  at  all, 
consigned  apparently  all  children  dying  before  the  use 
of  reason  to  annihilation.9  Gregory  of  Nyssa  seems 
to  have  some  such  notion  floating  before  his  mind, 
when,  at  the  opening  of  his  treatise,  On  Infants'  Early 

'  Iren^eus,  Haer.,  ii.,  22,  4,  and  iii.,  18,  7. 

2  Cf.  Wall,  Hist,  of  Infant  Baptism.     Ed.  2,  1707,  p.  365. 

3  See  Epiphanius,  Haer.,  67  ;  August.,  Haer.,  47  ;    and  compare  -y?t  M 
Smith  and  Wace,  Dictionary  of  Christian  Biography,  iii.,  24^    It  -*- 
is  possible  that  this  heresy  extended  itself  among  the  sectaries  of  the    »»  =» 
Middle  Ages,  and  that  it  is  some  such  notion  as  this  that  Peter  the   2^full 
Venerable  intends  when  he  accuses  "the  heretics"  (i.e.,  Peter  de  a<,        , 
Bruys  and  his  friends)  of  "denying  that  children   who  have  not  £*j 
reached  the  age  of  intelligence  can  be  saved  by  baptism,  nor  that  an-   fx 
other  person's  faith  can  profit  those  who  cannot  use  their  own,  since 

our  Lord  says,  '  Whosoever  shall  have  believed  and  shall  have  been 
baptized  shall  be  saved.'  "  Cf.  A.  H.  Newman,  A  History  of  Ant i- 
Pedobaptism,  p.  31. 


146  THE  DOCTRINE    OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

Death,  he  speaks  of  such  children  as  passing  out  of  the 
world  before  they  even  become  human. 

This  treatise,  which  is  probably  the  most  extended 
discussion  of  the  question  from  this  general  point  of 
view  which  has  come  down  to  us  from  the  patristic 
age,  is  full  of  interest.  It  was  written  in  Gregory's 
old  age,  at  the  request  of  Hierius,  the  governor  of 
Cappadocia,  and  undertakes  to  solve,  for  the  instruc- 
tion of  that  official,  the  problem  of  justice  which  the 
early  death  of  children  raised  under  the  legalistic  view- 
point. Gregory  begins  by  asserting  the  incongruity 
of  imagining  such  an  infant  as  standing  before  the 
judgment-seat  of  God,  and  the  equal  injustice  of  sup- 
posing him  to  pass  at  once  into  the  lot  of  the  blessed, 
without  having  acquired  any  merit.  With  apparently 
entire  unconsciousness  of  the  existence  of  anything  like 
race-sin,  he  frankly  proceeds  in  his  argument  on  the  as- 
sumption that  future  blessedness  belongs  of  right  to  hu- 
man beings  who  have  not  forfeited  it  by  personally  sin- 
ning, and  that  the  infant,  dying  such,  is  therefore  enti- 
tled to  its  natural  happiness.  The  point  of  difficulty 
arises  only  from  the  consideration  that  then  those  are  un- 
justly dealt  with  who  are  required  to  grow  up  in  this 
earthly  arena  and  to  earn  bliss  only  with  difficulty  or  to 
lose  it  through  their  transgressions.  This  he  attempts 
to  meet  by  two  suggestions.  On  the  one  hand,  he  sug- 
gests that  though  infants  enter  at  once  into  happiness, 
they  do  not  at  once  enter  intp  all  the  happiness  that 
rewards  him  who  is  victor  here.  "  But  the  soul  that 
has  never  felt  the  taste  of  virtue,"  he  says,  "  while  it 
may,  indeed,  remain  perfectly  free  from  the  sufferings 
which  flow  from  wickedness,  having  never  caught  the 
disease  of  evil  at  all,  does  nevertheless  in  the  first  in- 
stance partake  only  so  far  in  that  life  beyond  as  this 
nurseling  can  receive  ;  until  the  time  comes  that  it  has 
thriven  on  the  contemplation  of  the  truly  Existent  as 
on  a  congenial  diet,  and,  becoming  capable  of  receiving 
more,  takes  at  will  more  from  that  abundant  supply  of 
the  truly  Existent  which  is  offered."  By  this  only 
gradual  participation  in  bliss  he  would  avoid  the  injus- 
tice of  placing  one  that  had  acquired  no  virtue  on  the 


THE  PATRISTIC  DOCTRINE.  147 

same  level  with  him  who  had  borne  the  heat  and  bur- 
den of  the  day.  On  the  other  hand,  he  suggests  that 
the  reason  why  God  takes  some  away  from  the  chance 
of  failure  here,  removing  them  to  certain  bliss  in  their 
infancy,  may  be  that  He  owes  a  debt  to  their  parents' 
virtue,  or  that  He  foresees  that  the  evil  to  which  they 
would  give  themselves  if  left  on  earth  would  far  ex- 
ceed that  wrought  by  any  actually  permitted  to  re- 
main ;  or,  at  all  events,  he  argues,  it  may  be  needful 
to  leave  some  men  on  earth  to  sin,  that  their  evil  may 
serve  as  a  foil  for  the  virtue  of  the  righteous,  since  it  is 
beyond  doubt  an  addition  and  intensification  to  the  feli- 
city of  the  good  "  to  have  its  contrary  set  against  it." 
We  are  in  little  danger  of  judging  Gregory's  theodicy 
successful  ;'  but  it  is  doubtless  as  successful  a  theodicy  as 
could  be  wrought  out  on  his  premises.  If  the  awards 
of  the  future  life  are  to  be  conceived  as  distributed 
strictly  according  to  personal  merit,  and  infants,  dying 
such,  are  to  be  esteemed  free  from  sin,  it  would  seem 
logically  unavoidable  that  we  should  either  suppose 
them  to  pass  out  of  existence  at  death,  or,  like  Pelagius, 
invent  for  them  a  middle  place  of  natural  felicity, 
neither  heaven  nor  hell — or,  at  the  best,  like  Greg- 
ory, less  logically  but  more  genially,  fancy  the  Divine 
Father  fitting  them  gradually  for  higher  things  "  be- 
yond the  veil."  ^ 

The  same  ingrained  externalism  in  the  conceptions 
of  both  Jewish  and  heathen  converts  to  Christianity 
wrought,  however,  in  the  earliest  ages  of  the  Church, 
more  powerfully  and  permanently  another  corruption 
of  the  Christian  idea.  The  kingdom  which  Jesus  came 
to  found  was  not  of  this  world,  and  was  not,  in  its 
primary  idea,  an  external  organization.  But  it  was 
inevitable  that  it  should  soon  be  identified  with  the 
visible  Church,  and  the  regeneration  which  was  its 
door  with  the  baptism  by  which  entrance  into  the 
Church  was  accomplished.  Already  in  Justin  and 
Irenaeus  the  word  "  regeneration"  means  "  baptism  ;" 

1  The  whole  discussion  can  be  conveniently  read  in  vol.  v.  of  T/ie 
Nicene  and  Post-Nicene  Fathers.  Second  series.  New  York,  1893, 
pp.  372-381. 


143  THE  DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

and  the  language  of  John  iii.  5,  "  Verily,  verily,  1  say 
unto  you,  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  the 
Spirit  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God,"  was 
from  a  very  early  period  uniformly  understood  to  sus- 
pend salvation  upon  water-baptism.  How  early  this 
doctrine  of  the  necessity  of  baptism  for  salvation  be- 
came the  settled  doctrine  of  the  Church  it  is  difficult 
to  trace  in  the  paucity  of  very  early  witnesses.  Ter- 
tullian  already  defends  it  from  objection.1  The  reply 
of  Cyprian  and  his  fellow-bishops  to  Fidus  on  the  duty 
of  early  baptism,  and  especially  his  whole  argument 
to  Jubianus  against  the  validity  of  heretical  baptism, 
plainly  presuppose  it.a  By  this  date  clearly  it  was 
the  accepted  Church-doctrine  ;  and  although  its  strin- 
gency was  mitigated  in  the  case  of  adults  by  the  admis- 
sion not  only  of  the  baptism  of  blood,  but  also  of  that  of 
intention,'  the  latter  mitigation  was  not  allowed  in  the 
case  of  infants.  The  watchword  of  the  Church— first 
spoken  in  these  exact  words,  perhaps,  by  Cyprian  in 
his  strenuous  opposition  to  the  validity  of  heretical 
baptism4 — Extra  ecclesiam  satus  non  est,  hardened  in  this 
sense  into  an  undisputed  maxim.  The  whole  Patristic 
Church  thus  came  to  agree  that,  martyrs  excepted,  no 
infant  dying  unbaptized  could  enter  the  kingdom  of 
heaven. 

The  fairest  exponent  of  the  thought  of  the  age  on 
this  subject  is  Augustine,  who  was  called  upon  to  de- 
fend it  against  the  Pelagian  contention  that  infants 
dying  unbaptized,  while  failing  of  entrance  into  the 
kingdom,  yet  obtain  eternal  life.  His  constancy  in 
this  controversy  has  won  for  him  the  unenviable  title  of 
durus  infantum  pater— a  designation  doubly  unjust,  in 
that  not  only  did  he  not  originate  the  obnoxious  dogma 
or  teach  it  in  its  harshest  form,  but  he  was  even  pre- 
paring its  destruction  by  the  doctrines  of  grace,  of 
which  he  was  more  truly  the  father.     Augustine  ex- 

1  De  Bapt.,  c.  12. 

5  Epistles  lviii.  (lxiv.)  and  lxiii.  (lxxii.). 

8  With  what  limitations  may  be  conveniently  read  in  Wall,  Hist, 
of  Infant  Baptism,  ed.  2,  1707,  pp.  359  so. 
*  Epistle  lxiii.  (lxxii.),  §  21. 


THE  PATRISTIC  DOCTRINE.  149 

pressed  the  Church-doctrine  moderately,  teaching,  of 
course,  that  infants  dying  unbaptized  would  be  found 
on  Christ's  left  hand  and  be  condemned  to  eternal 
punishment,  but  also  not  forgetting  to  add  that  their 
punishment  would  be  the  mildest  of  all,  and  indeed 
that  they  were  to  be  beaten  with  so  few  stripes  that 
he  could  not  say  that  it  would  have  been  better  for 
them  not  to  be  born.1  His  zeal  in  the  matter  turned 
on  his  deepest  convictions,  and  the  essence  of  his  argu- 
ment may  be  exhibited  by  putting  together  two  or 
three  sentences  from  one  of  his  polemic  writings 
against  the  Pelagians.  ' '  We  must  by  no  means  doubt, ' ' 
he  says,  ' '  that  all  men  are  under  sin,  which  came  into 
the  world  by  one  man  and  has  passed  through  unto 
all  men,  and  from  which  nothing  frees  us  but  the  grace 
of  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  "  For  inas- 
much as  infants  are  only  able  to  become  His  sheep  by 
baptism,  it  must  needs  come  to  pass  that  they  perish 
if  they  are  not  baptized,  because  they  will  not  have 
that  eternal  life  which  He  gives  to  His  sheep."  "  Let 
then  there  be  no  eternal  salvation  promised  to  infants 
out  of  our  own  opinion,  without  Christ's  baptism  ; 
for  none  is  promised  in  that  Holy  Scripture  which  is 
to  be  preferred  to  all  human  authority  and  opinion.''2 
The  Pelagian,  denying  original  sin,  found  it  an  easy 
matter  to  assign  to  infants,  born  innocent  and  taken 
out  of  life  before  their  own  activities  could  soil  their 
consciences,  a  place  outside  of  the  kingdom  of  God, 
indeed,  but  also  free  from  punishment.  The  semi- 
Pelagians,  allowing  original  sin,  were  in  deeper  waters, 
and  seem  to  have  tentatively  suggested  that  the  fate 
of  each  infant  was  determined  by  what  God  knew  it 
would  have  done  had  it  lived  to  years  of  discretion. 
Augustine,  with  his  profound  conviction  of  the  reality 
of  innate  sin  and  of  its  guilt  before  God,3  could  not 

1  Augustine's  doctrine  is  most  strongly  expressed  in  Sermo  xiv. 
In  De  Peccat.  Merit.,  c,  21  (xvi.),  and  Contra  Julian.,  v.,  11,  he 
speaks  of  the  comparative  mildness  of  the  punishment. 

3  De  Peccat.  Merit.,  c.  33  (xxii.),  c.  40  (xxvii.). 

8  Mr.  H.  C.  Lea,  in  his  History  of  Auricular  Confession,  I.,  97,  ad- 
duces a  curious  instance  of  the  perversity  of  Monkish  thought  from  St. 
Odo  of  Cluny.  Augustine  bases  the  condemnability  of  infants  on  their 


150  THE  DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

but  contend  with  all  his  force  against  these  teachings  ; 
he  was  really  striving  for  the  essential  doctrines  of  uni- 
versal sinfulness  and  of  eternal  bliss  only  through  the 
propitiating  work  of  Christ.  Because  his  doctrine  was 
based  on  such  broad  grounds  no  one  could  surpass 
him  in  the  strength  of  his  conviction  as  to  the  doom  of 
unbaptized  children — i.e.,  in  his  view,  of  children  un- 
saved by  Christ.  But  it  is  not  to  Augustine,  but  to 
Fulgentius  (f  533),'  or  to  Alcimus  Avitus  (f  523),'  or  to 
Gregory  the  Great  (f  604)3  that  we  must  go  for  the 
strongest  expression  of  the  woe  of  unbaptized  infants. 

Meanwhile,  however,  whether  through  the  vigor  of 
Augustine's  advocacy  or  out  of  the  natural  and  indeed 
inevitable  revulsion  of  the  Christian  consciousness  in 
the  presence  of  Pelagian  error,  the  Church  had  come 
at  length  to  a  fully  reasoned  reassertion  of  its  primitive 
and  essential  faith,  that  infants,  too,  need  salvation,  and 

original  sin,  and  he  sometimes  accounts  for  the  transmission  of  sin  by 
the  presence  of  concupiscence  in  the  act  of  procreation.  Odo,  with- 
out more  ado,  traces  the  condemnability  of  infants  to  the  sinfulness 
of  conjugal  intercourse  !  Since  such  infants  are  certainly  not  pun- 
ished for  guilt  of  their  own,  he  argues,  it  is  clear  that  they  are  pun- 
ished for  that  sin  by  which  they  are  conceived  ;  "if,  therefore,"  he 
continues,  "  the  sin  in  conjugal  intercourse  is  so  great  that  an  infant 
for  that  alone  ought  to  be  punished  ..." 

1  E.g.,  De  Fide  ad  Petr.,  c.  27  :  "It  is  to  be  most  firmly  held,  and 
by  no  means  doubted,  that  not  only  men  already  in  the  use  of  reason, 
but  also  children,  whether  they  begin  to  live  in  their  mother's  womb 
and  there  die,  or  pass  from  this  world  after  being  born  from  their 
mothers  without  the  sacrament  of  baptism,  are  to  be  punished  with 
the  everlasting  penalty  of  eternal  fire  ;  because  although  they  had  no 
sin  of  their  own  committing,  they  nevertheless  incurred  by  their  car- 
nal conception  and  nativity  the  damnation  of  original  sin." 

s  E.g.,  Ad  Fuschiam  Sororem  : 

"  Omnibus  id  vero  gravius,  si  forte  lavacri 
Divini  expertem  tenerum  mors  invidia  natum 
Prsepitat,  dura  generatum  sorte  Gehennse. 
Qui  mox,  ut  matris  cessavit  Alius  esse, 
Perditionis  erit  ;  tristes  tunc  edita  nolunt 
Quae  flammis  tantum  genuerunt  pignora  matres." 

3  E.g.,  Expos,  in  Job,  i.  16.  Such  phrases  as  these  meet  us  in 
Gregory's  writings  :  "  Those  who  have  done  nothing  here  of  them- 
selves, but  have  not  been  freed  by  the  sacraments  of  salvation,  enter 
there  into  torments  ;"  "  It  is  perpetual  torment  which  those  receive 
who  have  not  sinned  of  their  own  proper  will  at  all."  {Moralz'um,  ix., 
xii.). 


THE  MEDIAEVAL  MITIGATION.  151 

none  of  any  age  enters  life  save  through  the  saving 
work  of  Christ.  This  is  the  fundamental  thought  of 
the  patristic  age  in  the  matter,  to  which  only  a  form 
was  given  by  its  belief  that  saving  grace  came  only 
through  baptism.  There  were  some  outside  Pelagian 
circles,  like  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  who  sought  for 
those  who  die  in  infancy  unbaptized  an  intermediate 
place,  neither  salvation  nor  retribution.  But  prob- 
ably, with  the  exception  of  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  only 
such  anonymous  objectors  as  those  whom  Tertullian 
confutes,1  or  such  obscure  and  erratic  individuals  as 
Vincentius  Victor  whom  Augustine  convicts,  in  the 
whole  patristic  age,  doubted  that  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  was  closed  to  all  infants  departing  this  life  with- 
out the  sacrament  of  baptism.  And  now  Augustine's 
scourge  had  driven  out  the  folly  of  imaging  an  eter- 
nity of  bliss  for  men  outside  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
and  apart  from  the  salvation  of  Christ. 

The  Mediceval  Mitigation. 

If  the  general  consent  of  a  whole  age  as  expressed 
by  its  chief  writers,  including  the  leading  bishops  of 
Rome,  and  by  its  synodical  decrees,  is  able  to  deter- 
mine a  doctrine,  certainly  the  Patristic  Church  trans- 
mitted to  the  Middle  Ages  as  de  fide  that  infants  dying 
unbaptized  (with  the  exception  only  of  those  who  suffer 
martyrdom)  are  not  only  excluded  from  heaven  but 
doomed  to  hell.  Accordingly  the  mediaeval  synods  so 
define.  The  second  Council  of  Lyons  and  the  Council 
of  Florence  declare  that  "  the  souls  of  those  who  pass 
away  in  mortal  sin  or  in  original  sin  alone  descend  im- 
mediately to  hell,  to  be  punished,  however,  with  un- 
equal penalties."  On  the  maxim  that  gradiis  non 
mutant  speciem  we  must  adjudge  Petavius2  unanswer- 
able, when  he  argues  that  this  deliverance  determines 
the  punishment  of  unbaptized  infants  to  be  the  same  in 
kind  (in  the  same  hell)  with  that  of  adults  in  mortal 

1  De  Bapt.,c.  12. 

s  Petavius,  Dog.  Theol.,  ed.  Paris,  1S65,  ii.,  59  sq. 


152  THE  DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

sin  :  "  So  infants  are  tormented  with  unequal  tortures 
of  fire,  but  are  tormented  nevertheless." 

Nevertheless  scholastic  thought  on  the  subject  was 
characterized  by  a  successful  effort  to  mollify  the 
harshness  of  the  Church-doctrine,  under  the  impulse 
of  the  prevalent  semi-Pelagian  conception  of  original 
sin.  The  whole  troup  of  schoolmen  unite  in  distin- 
guishing between  pcena  damni  and  p<z?ia  sensus,  and  in 
assigning  to  infants  dying  unbaptized  only  the  former 
— i.e.,  the  loss  of  heaven  and  of  the  beatific  vision— and 
not  the  latter—  i.e.,  positive  torment.  They  differ 
among  themselves  only  as  to  whether  th\s  pcena  damni, 
which  alone  is  the  lot  of  infants,  is  accompanied  by  a 
painful  sense  of  the  loss  (as  Lombard  held),  or  is  so 
negative  as  to  involve  no  pain  at  all,  either  external  or 
internal  (as  Aquinas  argued).  So  complete  a  victory 
was  won  by  this  mollification  that  perhaps  only  a  single 
theologian  of  eminence  can  be  pointed  to  who  ventured 
still  to  teach  the  doctrine  of  Augustine  and  Gregory — 
Gregory  Ariminensis  thence  called  tortor  infantum ; 
and  Hurter  reminds  us  that  even  he  did  not  dare  to 
teach  it  definitively,  but  only  submitted  it  to  the  judg- 
ment of  his  readers.1  Dante,  whom  Andrew  Seth  not 
unjustly  calls  "  by  far  the  greatest  disciple  of  Aquinas," 
has  enshrined  in  his  immortal  poem  the  leading  con- 
ception of  his  day,  when  he  pictures  the  "  young  chil- 
dren innocent,  whom  Death's  sharp  teeth  have  snatched 
ere  yet  they  were  freed  from  the  sin  with  which  our 
birth  is  blent,"  as  imprisoned  within  the  brink  of  hell, 
"  where  the  first  circle  girds  the  abyss  of  dread,"  in  a 
place  where  "  there  is  no  sharp  agony"  but  "  dark 
shadows  only,"  and  whence  "no  other  plaint  rises 
than  that  of  sighs  which  from  the  sorrow  without  pain 
arise."3  The  novel  doctrine  attained  papal  authority 
by  a  decree  of  Innocent  III.  (c.  1200),  who  determined 
"  the  penalty  of  original  sin  to  be  the  lack  of  the  vision 

1  Hurter,  Theolog.  Dogmat.  Compend.,  1878,  iii.,  p.  516:  Tract. 
x.,  cap.  iii.,  §  729.  Wycliffe  must  be  added  ;  but  he  stands  out  of 
the  mass. 

5  Hell,  iv.,  23  so.;  Purgatory,  vii.,  25  sq.;  Heaven,  xxxii.,  76  sq. 
(Plumptre's  translation). 


THE  MEDIMVAL   MITIGATION.  1 53 

of  God,  but  the  penalty  of  actual  sin  to  be  the  tor- 
ments of  eternal  hell." 

A  more  timid  effort  was  also  made  in  this  period  to 
modify  the  inherited  doctrine  by  the  application  to  it 
of  a  development  of  the  baptism  of  intention.  This 
tendency  first  appears  in  Hincmar  of  Rheims  (f  882), 
who,  in  a  particularly  hard  case  of  interdict  on  a  whole 
diocese,  expresses  the  hope  that  "  the  faith  and  godly 
desire  of  the  parents  and  godfathers"  of  the  infants 
that  had  thus  died  unbaptized,  "  who  in  sincerity  de- 
sired baptism  for  them  but  obtained  it  not,  may  profit 
them  by  the  gift  of  Him  whose  Spirit  (which  gives  re- 
generation) breathes  where  it  pleases."  It  is  doubtful, 
however,  whether  he  would  have  extended  this  lofty 
doctrine  to  any  less  stringent  case.1  Certainly  no 
similar  teaching  is  met  with  in  the  Church,  except 
with  reference  to  the  peculiarly  hard  case  of  still-born 
infants  of  Christian  parents.  The  schoolmen  {e.g., 
Alexander  Hales  and  Thomas  Aquinas)  admitted  a 
doubt  whether  God  may  not  have  ways  of  saving  such 
unknown  to  us.  John  Gerson,  in  a  sermon  before  the 
Council  of  Constance,  presses  the  inference  more 
boldly."  God,  he  declared,  has  not  so  tied  the  mercy 
of  His  salvation  to  common  laws  and  sacraments,  but 
that  without  prejudice  to  His  law  He  can  sanctify 
children  not  yet  born,  by  the  baptism  of  His  grace  or 
the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Hence,  he  exhorts  ex- 
pectant parents  to  pray  that  if  the  infant  is  to  die  be- 
fore attaining  baptism,  the  Lord  may  sanctify  it  ;  and 
who  knows,  he  says,  but  that  the  Lord  may  hear  them  ? 
He  adds,  however,  that  he  only  intends  to  suggest 
that  all  hope  is  not  taken  away  ;  for  there  is  no  cer- 
tainty without  a  revelation.  Gabriel  Biel  (f  1495)  fol- 
lowed in  Gerson's  footsteps,3  holding  it  to  be  accordant 
with  God's  mercy  to  seek  out  some  remedy  for  such 
infants.  This  teaching  remained,  however,  without 
effect  on  the  Church-dogma,  although  something  sim- 
ilar to  it  was,  among  men  who  served  God  in  the  way 

1  Cf.  Wall,  op.  ctt.,  p.  371. 

*  Sermon,  De  Nat.  Mar.  Virg.,  consid.  2,  col.  33. 

3  In  iv.,  Sect,  iv.,  p.  11. 


154  THE  DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

then  called  heresy,  foreshadowing  an  even  better  to 
come.  John  Wycliffe  (f  1384)  had  already  with  like 
caution  expressed  his  unwillingness  to  pronounce 
damned  such  infants  as  were  intended  for  baptism  by 
their  parents,  if  they  failed  to  receive  that  sacrament 
in  fact  ;  though  he  could  not,  on  the  other  hand,  assert 
that  they  were  saved.1  His  followers  were  less  cau- 
tious, whether  in  England  or  Bohemia  ;  and  in  this, 
too,  they  approved  themselves  heralds  of  a  brighter 
day. 

The  Drift  in  the  Church  of  Rome. 

In  the  upheaval  of  the  sixteenth  century  the  Church 
of  Rome  found  her  task  in  harmonizing,  under  the  in- 
fluence of  the  scholastic  formulas,  the  inheritance 
which  the  somewhat  inconsistent  past  had  bequeathed 
her.  Four  varieties  of  opinion  sought  a  place  in  her 
teaching.  At  the  one  extreme  the  earlier  doctrine  of 
Augustine  and  Gregory,  that  infants  dying  unbaptized 
suffer  eternally  the  pains  of  sense,  found  again  advo- 
cates, and  that  especially  among  the  greatest  of  her 
scholars,  such  as  Noris,  Petau,  Driedo,  Conry,  Berti. 
At  the  other  extreme,  a  Pelagianizing  doctrine  that  ex- 
cluded unbaptized  infants  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
and  the  life  promised  to  the  blessed,  and  yet  accorded 
to  them  eternal  life  and  natural  happiness  in  a  place 
between  heaven  and  hell,  was  advocated  by  such  great 
leaders  as  Ambrosius  Catharinus,  Albertus  Pighius, 
Molina,  Sfondrati.  The  mass,  however,  followed  the 
schoolmen  in  the  middle  path  of  poena  damni,  and, 
like  the  schoolmen,  differed  only  as  to  whether  this 
punishment  of  loss-  involved  sorrow  (as  Bellarmine 
held)  or  was  purely  negative.3  The  Council  of  Trent 
(1547)  anathematized  those  who  affirm  that  the  "  sacra- 

1  Cf.  Wall,  as  above. 

2  For  this  classification  see  Bellarmine,  De  Amiss.  Gratia:,  etc., 
vi.,  1  ;  and  compare  Gerhard,  Loci  (Cotta's  ed.),  vol.  ix.,  p.  279  ; 
Chamier,  Panstrat.  Cath.  (1626),  iii.,  159;  or  Spanheim,  Chamierus 
Contractus  (1643),  p.  797. 


THE  DRIFT  IN    THE   CHURCH  OF  ROME.  1 55 

ments  of  the  new  law  are  not  necessary  to  salvation, 
but  superfluous  ;  and  that,  without  them,  or  without 
the  desire  thereof,  men  obtain  of  God,  through  faith 
alone,  the  grace  of  justification  ;"  or,  again,  that  "  bap- 
tism is  free,  that  is,  not  necessary  to  salvation."  '  This 
is  explained  by  the  Tridentine  Catechism  to  mean  that 
"  baptism  is  necessary  to  every  one  without  qualifica- 
tion," and  that  "  the  law  of  baptism  is  prescribed  by 
our  Lord  to  all,  insomuch  that  they,  unless  they  be  re- 
generated to  God  through  the  grace  of  baptism,  are 
born  to  eternal  misery  and  perdition,  whether  their 
parents  be  Christian  or  infidel. ' ,a  The  Council  of  Trent 
thus  made  it  renewedly  de  fide  that  infants  dying  unbap- 
tized  incur  damnation,  though  it  left  the  way  open  for 
discussion  as  to  the  kind  and  amount  of  their  punish- 
ment.3 The  ordinary  instruction  in  the  Church  of 
Rome  has  naturally  been  conformed  to  this  point  of 
view.  Thus  the  Catechism  Prepared  a?id  Enjoined  by  Or- 
der of  the  Third  Plenary  Council  of  Baltimore  teaches 
that  "  baptism  is  necessary  to  salvation,  because  with- 
out it  we  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven."4 
Muller's  popular  Familiar  Explanation  of  Catholic  Doc- 
trine teaches  that  "  baptism  is  the  most  necessary  sac- 
rament, because  without  it  no  one  can  be  saved  ;"  B 
words  which  are  repeated  by  Deharbe.6     This  is  ex- 

1  Schaff's  Creeds  of  Christendom,  ii.,  pp.  120,  123  (Seventh  Ses- 
sion, March  3,  1547,  Canon  iv.  on  the  Sacraments,  and  Canon  v.  on 
Baptism). 

4  77*i?  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  Translated  into  Eng- 
lish ;  with  Notes  by  Theodore  Alois  Buckley,  B.A.,  pp.  150,  174, 
175  (Part  II.,  ch.  i.,  qq.  xvi.,  xxx.,  xxxiii.)  ;  cf.  Streitwolf  and 
Klener,  Libri  Symbolici  Eccles.  Cath.,  torn,  i.,  pp.  249,  274,  276. 
On  the  other  hand,  we  are  credibly  informed  that  the  council  was 
near  anathematizing  as  a  Lutheran  heresy  the  proposition  that  the 
penalty  for  original  sin  is  the  fire  of  hell  (so  Father  Paul,  Hist,  of 
the  Council  of  Trent,  c.  2). 

3  Perrone,  Prcelect.  Theol.  in  Compend.  Redact.,  i.,  p.  494. 

4  New  York  :  The  Catholic  Publication  Society — with  the  imprimatur 
of  Cardinal  McCloskey,  and  the  approval  of  Archbishop  (now  Cardi- 
nal) Gibbons,  dated  April  6th,  1888  :  No.  2,  Lesson  14  (p.  27). 

5  No.  IV.,  improved  ed.  New  York:  Benziger  Bros.  (1888), 
P-  309. 

6  A  Full  Catechis?n  of  the  Catholic  Religion,  Fander's  transla- 


156         THE  DOCTRINE  OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

panded  by  Schouppe  as  follows  :  "  This  necessity  is 
so  absolute  that  children  dying  without  baptism, 
though  innocent  of  all  actual  sin,  are  excluded  forever 
from  heaven,  on  account  of  the  original  stain  which 
they  bear  upon  their  souls.  Therefore  our  Lord  has 
permitted  them  to  be  baptized  as  soon  as  they  are  born, 
and  has  given  the  utmost  facility  to  the  administration 
of  so  indispensable  a  sacrament."  '  "  Millions,"  says 
Wenham,  "  are  saved  with  only  this  sacrament;  but 
no  one  is  ordinarily  saved  without  it."  3 

It  is  natural  to  catch  at  the  word  "  ordinary"  in  such 
a  deliverance.  And  the  Tridentine  declaration,  of 
course,  does  not  exclude  the  baptism  of  blood  as  a  sub- 
stitute for  baptism  of  water,  even  for  infants.  Neither 
does  it  seem  necessarily  to  exclude  the  application  of  a 
theory  of  baptism  of  intention  to  infants.  Even  after 
it,  therefore,  an  alternative  development  seems  to  have 
been  possible.  The  path  already  opened  by  Gerson 
and  Biel  might  have  been  followed  out,  and  a  baptism 
of  intention  developed  for  infants  as  well  as  for  adults. 
This  might  even  have  been  logically  pushed  on  so  as 
to  cover  the  case  of  all  infants  dying  in  infancy.  The 
principle  argued  by  Richard  Hooker,3  for  example,  ap- 
pears reasonable,  that  the  unavoidable  failure  of  bap- 
tism in  the  case  of  the  children  of  Christians  cannot 
lose  them  salvation,  because  of  the  presumed  desire 
and  purpose  of  baptism  for  them  in  their  Christian  par- 
ents and  in  the  Church  of  God.  And  it  would  be  to 
proceed  only  a  single  step  farther  to  have  said  that  the 
desire  and  purpose  of  Mother  Church  to  baptize  all  is 
intention  of  baptism  enough  for  all  dying  in  helpless 
infancy,  or  even  that  what  has  been  called  the  implicit 

tion,  revised,  etc  ,  by  Bishop  Lynch,  of  Charleston.  New  York  : 
The  Catholic  Publication  Society  Co.,  1891,  p.  248. 

1  Abridged  Course  of  Religious  Instruction,  etc.  By  the  Rev. 
Father  F.  X.  Schouppe,  S.  J.,  new  ed.,  etc.  London  :  Burns  & 
Oates,  p.  188. 

3  The  Catechumen,  etc.  By  J.  G.  Wenham,  Provost  of  Southwark. 
3d  ed.  London  :  St.  Anselm's  Society,  1892,  p.  293. 

8  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  v.,  ch.  60,  (ed.  Dobson,  I.  605.) 


THE  DRIFT  IN   THE    CHURCH  OF  ROME.  I57 

and  interpretative  faith  1  of  their  heathen  parents  may 
avail  for  them.  Thus  on  principles  agreeable  to  the 
general  Roman  line  of  thought  a  salvation  for  all  dying 
in  infancy  might  have  been  logically  deduced,  and  in- 
fants, as  more  helpless  and  less  guilty,  have  been  given 
the  preference  over  adults.  On  the  other  hand,  it 
could  be  argued  that  as  baptism  either  in  re  or  in  voto 
must  mediate  salvation,  and  as  infants  by  reason  of 
their  age  are  incapable  of  the  intention,  they  cannot  be 
saved  except  they  receive  baptism  in  fact,2  and  thus 
infants  be  discriminated  against  in  favor  of  adults.     It 

1  What  is  meant  by  this  language  may  be  gathered  from  the  follow- 
ing sentences  from  J.  Henry  Newman's  Letter  Addressed  to  His 
Grace  the  Duke  of  Norfolk,  on  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope:  "I 
have  employed  myself,  in  illustration,  in  framing  a  sentence  which 
would  be  plain  enough  to  any  priest,  but  I  think  would  perplex  any 
Protestant.  1  hope  it  is  not  to'o  light  to  introduce  here.  We  will  sup- 
pose then  a  theologian  to  write  as  follows  :  '  Holding,  as  we  do,  that 
there  is  only  material  sin  in  those  who,  being  i7ivincibly  ignorant, 
reject  the  truth,  therefore  in  charity  we  hope  that  they  have  the  future 
portion  of  for7nal  believers,  as  considering  that  by  virtue  of  their 
good  faith,  though  not  of  the  body  of  the  faithful,  they  implicitly  and 
interpret  at  ively  believe  what  they  seem  to  deny.'  What  sense  would 
this  statement  convey  to  the  mind  of  a  member  of  some  Reformation 
Society  or  Protestant  League  ?  He  would  read  it  as  follows,  and  con- 
sider it  all  the  more  insidious  and  dangerous  for  its  being  so  very 
unintelligible  :  '  Holding,  as  we  do,  that  there  is  only  a  very  consid- 
erable sin  in  those  who  reject  the  truth  out  of  contumacious  igno- 
rance, therefore  in  charity  we  hope  that  they  have  the  future  portion 
of  nominal  Christians,  as  considering,  that  by  the  excellence  of  their 
living  faith,  though  not  in  the  number  of  believers,  they  believe  with- 
out any  hesitation,  as  interpreters  [of  Scripture  ?],  what  they  seem  to 
deny.'  "     (P.  93.) 

*  Thus,  e.g.,  Dominicus  de  Soto  expresses  it  {De  Natura  et  Gratia, 
ii.  10)  :  "  It  is  most  firmly  established  in  the  Church  that  no  infant 
apart  from  baptism  in  re— since  he  cannot  have  it  in  voto — enters  the 
kingdom  of  heaven."  In  a  more  popular  form  it  is  put  thus  {A  Man- 
teal  of  Instruction  in  Christian  Doctrine,  etc.,  10th  ed.  London: 
St.  Anselm's  Society.  Ed.  3  [1871],  p.  282)  :  "  Baptism  is  absolutely 
necessary  to  salvation  for  all  infants,  at  least  wherever  the  Gospel  has 
been  promulgated.  .  .  .  Children,  therefore,  who  die  unbaptized 
cannot  enter  into  the  beatific  vision.  .  .  .  The  case  of  adults  is  some- 
what different.  For  them,  when  the  actual  reception  of  the  sacrament 
is  impossible,  an  act  of  perfect  charity,  which  includes  the  desire  of  it, 
will  suffice  for  salvation.  .  .  .  Again,  martyrdom,  which  is  the  high- 
est act  of  charity,  has  always  been  held  to  supply  the  place  of  bap- 
tism." The  book  bears  the  imprimaturs  of  Cardinals  Wiseman  and 
Manning. 


158  THE  DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

was  this  second  path  which  was  actually  followed  by 
the  theologians  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  with  the  ulti- 
mate result  that  not  only  are  infants  discriminated 
against  in  favor  of  adults,  but  the  more  recent  theo- 
logians seem  almost  ready  to  discriminate  against 
the  infants  of  Christians  as  over  against  those  of  the 
heathen. 

This  certainly  sufficiently  remarkable  result  grows 
out  of  the  development  which  has  been  given  in  later 
Romanism  to  the  doctrine  of  ignorance,  and  especially 
of  "  invincible  ignorance,"  the  latter  of  which  was  at 
length  authoritatively  defined  by  Pope  Pius  IX.  A 
very  characteristic  statement  of  the  nature  of  this  doc- 
trine is  to  be  found  in  the  late  Cardinal  Newman's  A 
Letter  Addressed  to  his  Grace  the  Duke  of  Norfolk  on  the 
infallibility  of  the  Pope.  He  is  illustrating  the  care 
with  which  doctrinal  statements  should  be  interpreted. 
"  One  of  the  most  remarkable  instances  of  what  I  am 
insisting  on,"  he  says,  "  is  found  in  a  dogma,  which  no 
Catholic  can  ever  think  of  disputing,  viz.,  that  '  Out  of 
the  Church,  and  out  of  the  faith,  is  no  salvation.'  Not 
to  go  to  Scripture,  it  is  the  doctrine  of  St.  Ignatius, 
St.  Irenaeus,  St.  Cyprian  in  the  first  three  centuries, 
as  of  St.  Augustine  and  his  contemporaries  in  the 
fourth  and  fifth.  It  can  never  be  other  than  an  ele- 
mentary truth  of  Christianity  ;  and  the  present  Pope 
has  proclaimed  it  as  all  Popes,  doctors,  and  bishops 
before  him.  But  that  truth  has  two  aspects,  according 
as  the  force  of  the  negative  falls  upon  the  '  Church  ' 
or  upon  the  '  salvation.'  The  main  sense  is,  that  there 
is  no  other  communion  or  so-called  Church  but  the 
Catholic,  in  which  are  stored  the  promises,  the  sacra- 
ments and  other  means  of  salvation  ;  the  other  and 
derived  sense  is,  that  no  one  can  be  saved  who  is  not 
in  that  one  and  only  Church.  But  it  does  not  follow, 
because  there  is  no  Church  but  one  which  has  the 
Evangelical  gifts  and  privileges  to  bestow,  that  there- 
fore no  one  can  be  saved  without  the  intervention  of 
that  one  Church.  Anglicans  quite  understand  this  dis- 
tinction ;  for,  on  the  one  hand,  their  article  says,  '  They 
are  to  be  had  accursed  (anathematizandi)  that  presume 


THE  DRIFT  IN   THE    CHURCH  OF  ROME.  159 

to  say,  that  every  man  shall  be  saved  by  (in)  the  law  or 
sect  which  he  professeth,  so  that  he  be  diligent  to 
frame  his  life  by  that  law  and  the  light  of  nature  ;' 
while  on  the  other  hand  they  speak  of  and  hold  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  '  uncovenanted  mercies  of  God.'  The 
latter  doctrine  in  its  Catholic  form  is  the  doctrine  of 
invincible  ignorance — or,  that  it  is  possible  to  belong 
to  the  soul  of  the  Church  without  belonging  to  its 
body  ;  and  at  the  end  of  1800  years  it  has  been  for- 
mally and  authoritatively  put  forth  by  the  present  Pope 
(the  first  Pope,  I  suppose,  who  has  done  so),  on  the  very 
same  occasion  on  which  he  has  repeated  the  funda- 
mental principle  of  exclusive  salvation  itself.  It  is  to 
the  purpose  here  to  quote  his  words  ;  they  occur  in 
the  course  of  his  Encyclical,  addressed  to  the  Bishops 
of  Italy,  under  the  date  of  August  10th,  1863  :  '  We  and 
you  knoiv  that  those  who  lie  under  invincible  ignorance 
as  regards  our  most  Holy  Religion,  and  who,  diligent- 
ly observing  the  natural  law  and  its  precepts,  which 
are  engraven  by  God  on  the  hearts  of  all,  and  prepared 
to  obey  God,  lead  a  good  and  upright  lite,  are  able,  by 
the  operation  of  the  power  of  divine  light  and  grace, 
to  obtain  eternal  life.'  "  *  Thus  while  an  absolute 
necessity  for  baptism  in  re  is  posited  for  the  infants  of 
Christian  parents,  even  though  they  die  in  the  womb, 
on  the  other  hand,  as  the  law  of  baptism  is  in  force 
only  where  it  is  known,  and  even  an  ignorance  morally 
invincible  (as  among  sectaries)  is  counted  true  igno- 
rance, not  even  an  intention  of  baptism  is  demanded  of 
the  heathen  or  of  certain  sectaries  but  may  be  held  to 
be  implicit — that  is,  they  may  be  thought  ready  to  do 
all  that  God  requires  if  only  they  knew  it.  Among  the 
heathen  thus  the  old  remedies  for  sin  are  held  to  be 
still  probably  valid,  and  their  "  primitive  sacraments" 
are  thought  to  retain  their  force  ; a  and  this  rule  may 

1  op.  at.,  p.  122. 

5  From  the  theological  point  of  view,  Gousset,  Theolog.  Dogmat. , 
10th  ed. ,  Paris,  1866,  i.,  548,  549,  351,  ii.,3S2,  may  be  profitably  consulted 
on  this  whole  subject.  How  it  is  popularly  presented  may  be  gathered 
from  the  following  editorial  remarks  from  The  Catholic  Review,  42, 
25  (December  11-17,  1893) :  "  The  truth  is  that  God  does  not  demand 
what  is  impossible  ;  the  heathen  who  have  not  heard  of  the  Gospel 


160  THE  DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

with  some  prudence  be  extended  to  cover  some  sec- 
taries. It  may  be  extended  also  to  cover  the  case  of 
the  infants  of  the  heathen,  dying  such.  St.  Bernard, 
for  example,  is  quoted  approvingly  by  Gousset  as  say- 
ing, "  Among  the  Gentiles  as  many  as  are  found  faith- 
ful, we  believe  that  the  adults  are  expiated  by  faith  and 
the  sacrifices  ;  but  the  faith  of  the  parents  profits  the 
children,  nay,  even  suffices  for  them."  If  the  fathers 
are  saved,  in  other  words,  why  not  the  children  ? 

Sometimes  a  very  sweeping  application  is  given  to  this 
principle,  as  may  be  illustrated  by  a  popular  exposition 
of  it  made  a  lew  years  ago  in  the  pages  of  The  London 
Month.1  The  writer  is  oppressed  by  the  thought  of 
the  millions  of  unbaptized  children  who  die  annually. 
On  the  basis  of  John  iii.  5  he  declares  that  our  Lord 
"  excludes  from  the  beatific  vision  all  children  who  die 
unbaptized  and  who  do  not  supply  for  the  baptism  of 
water  by  the  baptism  of  desire,  or  the  baptism  of 
blood."  It  may  be  taken,  therefore,  as  a  first  princi- 
ple "  that  without  baptism  no  little  child,  under  the 
Christian  dispensation,  enters  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 
"  But,"  he  instructs  his  readers,  "  we  must  not  omit 
to  notice  that  we  are  speaking  of  the  Christian  dispen- 
sation and  of  it  alone."  God  provided  for  the  Jews  a 
sort  of  anticipation  of  baptism  ;  and  we  must  suppose 
that  something  of  the  sort  existed  in  the  patriarchal 
age.  "  How  long  such  traditional  offering  lasted  on 
outside  of  the  Jewish  Covenant  we  do  not  know  ;  it 
may  be  that  during  the  whole  period  previous  to  the 
coming  of  our  Lord,  those  who  were  believers  in  the 
true  God  had  the  opportunity  ot  obtaining  from  Him 
the  deliverance  of  their  little  children  from  original 

will  be  judged  by  the  light  and  grace  given  them.  If  we,  with  the 
Sacraments  and  the  Sacrifice,  are  so  apt  to  fall  into  sin,  how  hard  it 
must  be  for  the  pagans  to  be  faithful  to  natural  virtue.  Yet  some  of 
them,  no  doubt,  have  been  true  to  the  voice  of  conscience  and  are  to- 
day in  heaven.  Having  the  disposition  to  do  right,  they  had  the  im- 
Elied  desire  for  baptism,  and  St.  Thomas  says  that  if  actual  baptism 
ad  been  essential  for  their  salvation,  the  Almighty  would  have  sent 
an  angel  from  heaven  to  pour  the  cleansing  water  on  them.  They 
are  few,  probably,  but  few  or  many,  they  manifest  the  mercy  of  God 
and  show  that  nowhere  was  salvation  made  impossible." 
1  London  Month,  February,  1803. 


THE  DRIFT  IN   THE   CHURCH  OF  ROME.  161 

sin,  when  they  offered  them  to  be  His,  and  dedicated 
them,  according  to  the  best  of  their  ability  and  knowl- 
edge, to  His  service.  Nay,  we  may  even  hope  that  in 
the  present  day  the  dwellers  in  lands  where  the  name  of 
Christ  is  still  unknown  may  save  their  children,  as  they 
certainly  can  save  themselves,  from  the  eternal  loss  of 
God,  if  they  offer  their  little  ones  to  Him  with  a  recog- 
nition of  Him  as  their  all-powerful  King  and  Lord." 
As  over  against  this  "  wider  hope"  for  the  children  of 
the  heathen,  however,  nothing  so  comforting  can  be 
said  of  the  children  of  the  faithful  who  die  unbaptized. 
A  few  Catholic  theologians  may  have  indulged  hope  for 
them  ;  but  on  insufficient  grounds.  "  Here  and  there 
it  may  be  that  God,  by  an  extraordinary  intervention  in 
behalf  of  some  one  of  His  faithful  servants,  may  grant 
such  a  privilege  to  some  favored  little  one,  but  only  by 
a  very  special  miracle  of  grace,  and  as  a  rare  exception 
to  the  general  law."  And  even  this  meagre  comfort 
is  disallowed  by  most  writers,  as,  indeed,  on  the  basis 
of  the  Tridentine  decrees  it  must  be.  Why,  however, 
the  baptism  of  intention  should  receive  so  wide  an  ex- 
tension to  the  heathen,  so  as  to  give  even  the  infants 
of  the  heathen  the  benefit  of  it,  and  be  so  inflexibly 
denied  to  the  infants  of  Christians,  is  a  question  which 
will  not  easily  receive  satisfactory  answer. 

The  application  of  the  baptism  of  intention  to  the  in- 
fants of  Christians  was  not  abandoned  without  some 
protest  from  the  more  tender-hearted.  Cardinal  Caje- 
tan  defended  in  the  Council  of  Trent  itself  Gerson's 
proposition  that  the  desire  of  godly  parents  might  be 
taken  in  lieu  of  the  actual  baptism  of  children  dying  in 
the  womb.1  Cassander  (1570)  encouraged  parents  to 
hope  and  pray  for  children  so  dying."  Bianchi  (1768) 
holds  that  such  children  may  be  saved  per  oblationem 
paeri  qaam  Deo  mater  extrinsecus  faciat.3  Eusebius 
Amort  (1758)  teaches  that  God  may  be  moved  by  pray- 
er to  grant  justification  to  such  extra-sacramentally.* 
Even  somewhat  bizarre  efforts  have  been  made  to  es- 

1  In  3  Part.  Thomae,  Q.  68,  art.  2,  et.  11. 

s  De  bapt,  infant.  8  De  Remedio  .  .  .  pro  parentis. 

4  Theolog.  Moral.,  ii.,  xi.,  3. 


162         THE  DOCTRINE    OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

cape  the  sad  conclusion  proclaimed  by  the  Church. 
Thus  Klee  holds  that  a  lucid  interval  is  accorded  to  in- 
fants in  the  article  of  death,  so  that  they  may  conceive 
the  wish  for  baptism.1  An  obscure  French  writer  sup- 
poses that  they  may,  "  shut  up  in  their  mother's  womb, 
know  God,  love  Him,  and  have  the  baptism  of  desire."  a 
A  more  obscure  German  conceives  that  infants  remain 
eternally  in  the  same  state  of  rational  development  in 
which  they  die,  and  hence  enjoy  all  they  are  capable 
of  ;  if  they  die  in  the  womb  they  either  fall  back  into 
the  original  force  from  which  they  were  produced,  or 
enjoy  a  happiness  no  greater  than  that  of  trees.3  These 
protests  of  the  heart  have  awakened,  however,  no  gen- 
eral response  in  the  Church,*  which  has  preferred  to 
hold  fast  to  the  dogma  that  the  failure  of  baptism  in 
infants,  dying  such,  excludes  ipso  facto  from  heaven. 
What  the  Church  of  Rome,  therefore,  teaches  as  to 
the  fate  of  infants  of  Christian  parents  dying  such  is, 
briefly,  as  follows  :  "  Baptism  is  necessary  as  a  means 
of  salvation  for  both  infants  and  adults.  This  neces- 
sity is  not  such  as  to  exclude  exceptions  as  regards  the 
rite,  though  not  as  regards  the  substance  and  chief 
effects,  in  case  actual  baptism  is  impossible.  ...  In 
the  case  of  adults  the  effect  can  be  obtained  by  contri- 
tion, perfect  love  of  God,  with  a  desire  of  baptism.  .  .  . 
In  the  case  of  infants  who  are  dead  in  sin  through  shar- 
ing in  the  guilt  of  Adam,  and  are  incapable  of  making 
an  act  of  attrition,  the  only  way  they  can  enter  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  by  baptism.  ...  As  infants  are 
incapable  of  rational  sentiments,  their  sanctification 
must  be  the  work  of  a  sacrament,  that  is,  a  divinely 
ordained  rite  that  produces  its  effect  while  their  souls 
are  passive."  5 

'  Dog.  iii.,  2,  §  i. 

a  De  la  Marne,  Traite"  metaphysique  des  Dogmes  de  la  Triniti, 
etc.,  Paris,  1826. 

8  Hermessius,  Zeitschr.f.  Phil.  u.  kath.  Theol.,  Bonn,  1832. 

4  Compare  Vasquez,  in  3  P.  s.  Th.,  disp.  cli.,  cap.  1  ;  Hurter,  op. 
cit  ,  1878,  iii.,  516  sq.  ;  Perrone,  Pralect.  Theolog.  (1839),  vi.,  55. 

6  The  Very  Rev.  William  Byrne,  D.D.,  Vicar-General  of  the  Arch- 
diocese of  Baltimore,  The  Catholic  Doctrine  of  Faith  and  Morals, 
etc.,  Boston,  1892,  pp.  224,  225. 


THE  DRIFT  IN   THE   CHURCH  OF  ROME.  163 

The  comfort  which  is  refused  from  the  application 
of  the  principle  of  baptism  of  intention  to  infants,  is 
sought  by  the  Church  ot  Rome  by  mitigating  still  far- 
ther than  the  scholastics  themselves  the  nature  of  that 
poena  damni  which  alone  it  allows  as  punishment  of 
original  sin.  And  if  we  may  assume  that  such  writers 
as  Perrone,  Hurter,  Gousset  and  Kendrick  are  typical 
of  modern  Roman  theology  throughout  the  world, 
certainly  that  theology  may  be  said  to  have  come,  in 
this  pathway  of  mitigation,  as  near  to  positing  salva- 
tion for  all  infants  dying  unbaptized  as  the  rather 
intractable  deliverances  of  early  Popes  and  later  coun- 
cils permit  to  them.  As  the  definitions  of  Florence 
and  Trent  require  of  them,  they  all  teach,  of  course, 
(in  the  words  of  Perrone,1)  "  that  children  of  this  kind 
descend  into  hell,  or  incur  damnation  ;"  but  (as  Hur- 
ter says"),  "  although  all  Catholics  agree  that  infants 
dying  without  baptism  are  excluded  from  the  beatific 
vision,  and  so  suffer  loss,  are  lost  (j>ati  damnum,  datnna- 
ri),  they  yet  differ  among  themselves  in  their  deter- 
mination of  the  nature  and  condition  of  the  state  into 
which  such  infants  pass."  As  the  idea  of  "  damna- 
tion" may  thus  be  softened  to  a  mere  failure  to  attain^ 
so  the  idea  of  "  hell"  may  be  elevated  to  that  of  a 
natural  paradise.1  Hurter  himself  is  inclined  to  a  some- 
what severer  doctrine.     But    Perrone  (supported  by 

1  Compend.,  1861,  i.,  494,  No.  585.  a  Op.  cit.,  No.  729. 

3  What  is  possible  in  the  Church  of  Rome  in  the  way  of  elevating  the 
idea  of  hell  to  that  of  a  paradise  may  be  interestingly  investigated  by 
reading  the  notable  discussion  on  The  Happiness  in  Hell  by  Professor 
St.  George  Mivart  and  others  in  The  Nineteenth  Century  for  Decem- 
ber, 1892,  and  January.  February,  April,  September,  and  December, 
1893.  Professor  Mivart's  language  is  such  as  this  :  "  Hell  in  its  widest 
sense — namely,  as  including  all  those  blameless  souls  who  do  not  en- 
joy the  Beatific  Vision — must  be  considered  as,  for  them,  an  abode  of 
happiness  transcending  all  our  most  vivid  anticipations,  so  that  man's 
natural  capacity  for  happiness  is  there  gratified  to  the  very  utmost  ; 
nor  is  it  even  possible  for  the  Catholic  theologian  of  the  most  severe 
and  rigid  school  to  deny  that,  thus  considered,  there  is,  and  there 
will  for  all  eternity  be,  a  real  and  true  happiness  in  hell"  (Dec. 
1892,  p.  919).  Professor  Mivart's  articles  have  been  placed  on  the  In- 
dex, and  his  language  is  extreme.  But  it  is  language  which  obvious- 
ly expresses  a  widespread  conviction  among  Roman  teachers.  And, 
indeed,  a  hell  for  "  blameless  souls"  could  scarcely  be  more  severe. 


1 64         THE  DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

such  great  lights  as  Balmes,  Berlage,  Oswald,  Lessius, 
and  followed  not  afar  off  by  Gousset  and  Kendrick)  re- 
verts to  the  Pelagianizing  view  of  Catharinus  and  Mo- 
lina and  Sfondrati — which  Petau  called  a  "  fabrication" 
championed  indeed  by  Catharinus  but  originated  "by 
Pelagius  the  heretic,"  and  which  Bellarmine  contend- 
ed was  contra  fidem—  and  teaches  that  unbaptized  infants 
enter  into  a  state  deprived  of  all  supernatural  bene- 
fits, to  be  sure,  but  endowed  with  all  the  happiness  of 
which  pure  nature  is  capable.  Their  state  is  described 
as  having  the  nature  of  penalty  and  of  damnation  when 
conceived  of  relatively  to  the  supernatural  happiness 
from  which  they  are  excluded  by  original  sin  ;  but  when 
conceived  of  in  itself  and  absolutely,  it  is  a  state  of 
pure  nature,  and  accordingly  the  words  of  Thomas 
Aquinas  are  applied  to  it :  "  They  are  joined  to  God 
by  participation  in  natural  goods,  and  so  also  can  re- 
joice in  natural  knowledge  and  love."  ' 

Thus,  after  so  many  ages,  the  Pelagian  conception  of 
a  middle  state  for  infants  dying  unbaptized  has  ob- 
tained its  revenge  upon  the  condemnation  inflicted 
upon  it  by  the  Church.  To  be  sure,  it  is  not  admitted 
that  this  is  a  return  to  Pelagianism.  Perrone,  for  ex- 
ample, argues  that  Pelagius  held  the  doctrine  of  a  natu- 
ral beatitude  for  infants  as  one  unrelated  to  sin,  while 
"  Catholic  theologians  hold  it  with  the  death  of  sin  ;  so 
that  the  exclusion  from  the  beatific  vision  has  the  na- 
ture of  penalty  and  of  damnation  proceeding  from  sin. ' ' a 
It  may  be  doubted  whether  there  is  more  than  a  verbal 
difference  here.  Both  Pelagius  and  the  Church  of 
Rome  consign  infants  dying  unbaptized  to  a  natural 
paradise.  In  deference  to  the  language  of  fathers  and 
councils  and  Popes,  this  natural  paradise  is  formally 
assigned  by  Roman  theologians  to  that  portion  of  the 
other  world  designated  "  hell."  But  in  its  own  nature 
it  is  precisely  what  the  Pelagians  taught  should  be  the 
state  of  unbaptized  infants  after  death.  By  what  ex- 
pedients such  teaching  is  to  be  reconciled  with  the 
other  doctrines  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  or  with  its 
former  teaching  on  this  same  subject,  or  with  its  boast 

1  Compend,  1861,  i.,  494,  cf.  ii.,  252.       a  Ibid.,  1861,  i.,  494,  No.  590. 


THE  LUTHERAN    TEACHING.  1 65 

of  semper  eadem,  is  more  interesting  to  its  advocates 
within  that  communion  than  to  us.1  Our  interest  as 
historians  of  opinion  is  exhausted  in  simply  noting  the 
fact  that  the  Pelagianizing  process,  begun  in  the  Mid- 
dle Ages  by  ascribing  to  infants  guilty  only  of  original 
sin  liability  to  poena  damni  alone,  culminates  in  our  day 
in  their  assignment  by  the  most  representative  theo- 
logians of  modern  Rome  to  a  natural  paradise,  which 
has  not  been  purchased  for  them  by  Christ  but  is  their 
natural  right:  This  is  of  the  very  essence  of  Pelagian- 
ism,  and  logically  implies  the  whole  Pelagian  system." 

The  Lutheran  Teaching. 

This  Pelagianizing  drift  may  no  doubt  be  regarded 
as  in  part  a  reaction  from  the  harshness  of  the  Roman- 

1  See  some  of  the  difficulties  very  mildly  stated  in  Hurter,  loc.  cit. 

2  It  is  not  necessary  to  point  out,  e.g.,  that  such  a  determination 
implies  a  Pelagianizing  doctrine  of  sin.  When  we  make  all  the  hap- 
piness of  which  nature  is  capable  the  desert  of  original  sin,  there  is 
little  to  choose  between  this  "  doctrine  of  original  sin"  and  its  entire 
denial.  Some  Roman  writers  appear  to  stand,  therefore,  on  the  verge 
of  sending  all  infants  dying  such  to  heaven,  despite  the  explicit  teach- 
ing of  the  Church  to  the  contrary.  For  example,  S.  J.  Hunter,  S.J. 
(Outlines  of  Dogmatic  Theology.  New  York  :  Benziger  Bros.,  1896, 
vol.  iii.)  says  at  p.  229  :  "We  hold  then  that,  after  the  promulga- 
tion of  the  Gospel,  infants  who  die  without  baptism  of  water  or  of 
blood  are  not  admitted  to  the  supernatural  vision  of  God,  which  con- 
stitutes the  happiness  of  heaven  ;  that  in  consequence  of  the  sin  of 
Adam  they  will  remain  forever  deprived  of  that  happiness  for  which 
they  were  destined.  But  this  privation  is  no  injustice  to  them,  for 
their  nature  gave  them  no  claim  in  justice  to  a  supernatural  reward  ; 
nor  does  it  imply  any  unhappiness  in  them,  for  they  need  not  be  sup- 
posed to  know  what  they  have  lost."  And  then  he  adds:  "What 
little  can  be  said  concerning  the  difficult  subject  of  their  state  will  be 
found  in  the  closing  treatise  of  this  volume. ' '  But  when  we  turn  to 
the  closing  treatise  of  the  volume,  what  we  find  is  this  (pp.  441,  442) : 
"  The  Catholic  doctrine  is  that  hell  is  the  portion  of  those  who  leave 
this  life  with  the  guilt  of  actual  mortal  sin.  If  a  sin  be  such  that  the 
punishment  of  hell  is  more  than  is  deserved  by  the  malice  involved, 
then  that  sin  is  not  a  mortal  sin.  .  .  .  We  have  already  said  what 
was  necessary  concerning  the  lot  of  infants  that  die  without  baptism 
either  of  water  or  of  blood,  and  therefore  still  under  the  guilt  of  original 
sin,  but  without  actual  sin."  Thus  we  are  sent  back  and  forth  on  a 
fruitless  errand— except  so  far  as  we  gather  this  :  that  as  hell  is  for 
those  alone  who  are  burdened  with  "  the  guilt  of  actual  mortal  sin," 
and  as  infants  dying  such  are  "  without  actual  sin,"  hell  is  no  place 
for  them.  As  there  is  no  permanent  state  of  existence  between  hea- 
ven and  hell,  and  infants  are  excluded  from  both,  where  do  they  go? 


1 66  THE  DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

ist  syllogism,  "  No  man  can  attain  salvation  who  is  not 
a  member  of  Christ  ;  but  no  one  becomes  a  member  of 
Christ  except  by  baptism,  received  either  in  re  or  in 
voto."  '  So  considered,  its  fault  is  that  it  impinges  by 
way  of  mitigation  and  modification  on  the  major  pre- 
mise ;  which,  however,  is  the  fundamental  proposition 
of  Christianity.  Its  roots  are  planted,  in  the  last  analy- 
sis, in  a  conception  of  men,  not  as  fallen  creatures, 
children  of  wrath  and  deserving  of  a  doom  which  can 
only  be  escaped  by  becoming  members  of  Christ,  but 
as  creatures  of  God  with  claims  on  Him  for  natural 
happiness,  but,  of  course,  with  no  claims  on  Him  for 
such  additional  supernatural  benefits  as  He  may  yet 
lovingly  confer  on  His  creatures  in  Christ.  On  the 
other  hand,  that  great  religious  movement  which  we 
call  the  Reformation,  the  constitutive  principle  of 
which  was  its  revised  doctrine  of  the  Church,  ranged 
itself  properly  against  the  fallacious  minor  premise,  and 
easily  broke  its  bonds  with  the  sword  of  the  Word. 
Men  are  not  constituted  members  of  Christ  through 
the  Church,  but  members  of  the  Church  through 
Christ  :  they  are  not  made  the  members  of  Christ  by- 
baptism  which  the  Church  gives,  but  by  faith,  the  gift 
of  God  ;  and  baptism  is  the  Church's  recognition  of 
this  inner  fact. 

The  full  benefit  ol  this  better  apprehension  of  the 
nature  of  that  Church  of  God  membership  in  which  is 
the  condition  of  salvation,  was  not  reaped,  however, 
by  all  Protestants  in  equal  measure.  It  was  the 
strength  of  the  Lutheran  movement  that  it  worked  out 
its  positions  not  theoretically  or  all  at  once,  but  step  by 
step,  as  it  was  forced  on  by  the  logic  of  events  and  ex- 
perience. But  it  was  an  incidental  evil  that,  being 
compelled  to  express  its  faith  early,  its  first  confession 
was  framed  before  the  full  development  of  Protestant 
thought,  and  subsequently  contracted  the  faith  of  Lu- 
theranism  into  too  narrow  channels.  The  Augsburg 
Confession  contains  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Church  as 
the  congregatio  sanctorum  ;  but  it  committed  Lutheran- 

1  The  words  are  Aquinas's  (p.  3,  q.  68,  art.  1) ;  see  them  quoted 
and  applied  by  Perrone,  Comfiend.,  ii.,  253. 


THE  LUTHERAN   TEACHING.  1 67 

ism  to  the  doctrine  that  baptism  is  necessary  to  salva- 
tion. This  it  did  by  teaching  that  children  are  not 
saved  without  baptism  (Art.  IX.),1  inasmuch  as  the 
condemnation  and  eternal  death  brought  by  original 
sin  upon  all  are  not  removed  except  from  those  who 
are  born  again  by  baptism  and  the  Holy  Ghost  (Art. 
II.)."  Surely  by  this  declaration  the  necessity  of  bap- 
tism is  made  the  necessity  of  means."  And  the  doctrine 
of  the  Augsburg  Confession  is  repeated  in  the  Formula 
Concordiae.  In  this  symbol  the  Anabaptists  are  con- 
demned because  they  teach  "  that  infants  not  baptized 
are  not  sinners  before  God,  but  just  and  innocent,  and 
in  this  their  innocence,  when  they  have  not  as  yet  the 
use  of  reason,  may,  without  baptism  (of  which,  to  wit, 
in  the  opinion  of  the  Anabaptists  they  have  no  need) 
attain  unto  salvation.  And  in  this  way  they  reject  the 
whole  doctrine  of  original  sin,  and  all  the  consequences 
that  follow  therefrom."  From  this  it  seems  clear  that 
to  the  framers  of  the  Formula  it  is  one  of  the  conse- 
quences which  follow  from  original  sin  that  even  in- 
fants, dying  before  the  use  of  reason,  cannot  attain  unto 
salvation  without  baptism  ;  and  this  inference  is 
strengthened  by  the  subsequent  article  which  con- 
demns the  Anabaptists  for  teaching  "  that  the  children 
of  Christians,  on  the  ground  that  they  are  sprung  from 
Christian  and  believing  parents,  are  in  very  deed  holy, 
and  are  to  be  accounted  as  belonging  to  the  children 
of  God,  even  apart  from  and  before  the  receiving  of 
baptism."     Whence  it  would  seem  to  follow  that  they 

1  "  Of  baptism  they  teach  that  it  is  necessary  to  salvation.  .  .  . 
They  condemn  the  Anabaptists,  who  allow  not  the  baptism  of  chil- 
dren, and  affirm  that  children  are  saved  without  baptism,"  "and 
outside  the  Church  of  Christ,"  as  is  added  in  ed.  1540.  (Schaff, 
Creeds  of  Ckrzstendotn,  iii.,  p.  13.) 

2  "  Also  they  teach  that,  after  Adam's  fall,  all  men  begotten  after 
the  common  course  of  nature  are  born  with  sin  ;  .  .  .  and  that  this 
disease  of  original  fault  is  truly  sin,  condemning  and  bringing  eternal 
death  now  also  upon  all  that  are  not  born  again  by  baptism  and  the 
Holy  Spirit.  They  condemn  the  Pelagians  and  others  who  deny  this 
original  fault  to  be  sin  indeed,  and  who,  so  as  to  lessen  the  glory  of 
the  merits  and  the  benefits  of  Christ,  argue  that  a  man  may,  by  the 
strength  of  his  own  reason,  be  justified  before  God"  (Schaff,  loc. 
cit.,  p.  81.) 

5  -  ^JLc  c  <-  - 

. 


1 68  THE  DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

are  made  holy  first  and  only  by  baptism.1  These  de- 
liverances have  naturally  been  felt  to  require  some  mol- 
lifying interpretation,  and  in  this  direction  the  theo- 
logians have  urged  :  i.  That  the  necessity  affirmed  is 
not  absolute  but  ordinary,  and  binds  man  and  not  God. 
2.  That  as  the  assertion  is  directed  against  the  Ana- 
baptists, it  is  not  the  privation  but  the  contempt  of 
baptism  that  is  affirmed  to  be  damning.  3.  That  the 
necessity  of  baptism  is  not  intended  to  be  equalized 
with  that  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  4.  That  the  affirmation 
is  not  that  for  original  sin  alone  any  one  is  actually 
damned,  but  only  that  all  are  therefor  damnable. 
There  is  force  undoubtedly  in  these  considerations. 
But  they  obviously  do  not  avail  wholly  to  relieve  the 
Lutheran  formularies  of  limiting  salvation  to  those  who 
enjoy  the  means  of  grace,  and,  as  concerns  infants,  to 
those  who  receive  the  sacrament  of  baptism. 

It  is  not  to  be  contended,  of  course,  that  these  for- 
mularies assert  such  an  absolute  necessity  of  baptism 
for  infants,  dying  such,  as  can  admit  of  no  exceptions. 
From  Luther  and  Melanchthon  down,  Lutheran  theolo- 
gians have  always  taught  what  Hunnius  expressed  in 
the  Saxon  Visitation  Articles  :  "  Unless  a  person  be 
born  again  of  water  and  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Cases  of  necessity  are  riot  in- 
tended, however,  by  t/iis."  2  Lutheran  theology,  in  other 
words,  has  taken  its  stand  positively  on  the  ground  of 
baptism  of  intention  as  applied  to  infants,  as  over 
against  its  denial  by  the  Church  of  Rome.  "  Luther," 
says  Dorner,3  "  holds  fast,  in  general,  to  the  necessity 
of  baptism  in  order  to  salvation,  but  in  reference  to  the 
children  of  Christians  who  have  died  unbaptized,  he 
says  :  '  The  Holy  and  Merciful  God  will  think  kindly 
of  them.  What  He  will  do  with  them  He  has  revealed 
to  no  one,  that  baptism  may  not  be  despised,  but  has 
reserved  to  His  own  mercy  ;  God  does  wrong  to  no 
man.'  "  *     From  the  fact  that  Jewish  children  dying  be- 

1  Schaff's  Creeds  of  Christendom,  iii.,  pp.  174,  175. 
1  Ibid.,  iii.,  184. 

8  Hist,  of  Protestant  Theology  (E.T.),  i.,  171. 
4  Opp.,  xxii.,  872  (Dorner' s  quotation). 


THE  LUTHERAN   TEACHING.  169 

fore  circumcision  were  not  lost,  Luther  argues  that 
neither  are  Christian  children  dying  before  baptism  ;' 
and  he  comforts  Christian  mothers  ot  still-born  babes 
by  declaring  that  they  should  understand  that  such  in- 
fants are  saved.3  So  Bugenhagen,  under  Luther's 
direction,  teaches  that  Christians'  children  intended 
for  baptism  are  not  left  to  the  hidden  judgment  of  God 
if  they  fail  of  baptism,  but  have  the  promise  of  being 
received  by  Christ  into  His  kingdom.3  It  is  not  neces- 
sary to  quote  later  authors  on  a  point  on  which  all  are 
unanimous  ;  let  it  suffice  to  add  only  the  clear  state- 
ment of  the  developed  Lutheranism  of  John  Gerhard 
(1610-22)  :4  "  We  walk  in  the  middle  way,  teaching 
that  baptism  is,  indeed,  the  ordinary  sacrament  of  initia- 
tion and  means  ot  regeneration  necessary  to  all,  even 
to  the  children  of  believers,  for  regeneration  and  sal- 
vation ;  but  yet  that  in  the  event  of  privation  or  im- 
possibility the  children  of  Christians  are  saved  by  an 
extraordinary  and  peculiar  divine  dispensation.  For 
the  necessit}7  of  baptism  is  not  absolute,  but  ordinary  ; 
we  on  our  part  are  obliged  to  the  necessity  of  baptism, 
but  there  must  be  no  denial  of  the  extraordinary  action 
of  God  in  infants  offered  to  Christ  by  pious  parents  and 
the  Church  in  prayers,  and  dying  before  the  oppor- 
tunity of  baptism  can  be  given  them,  since  God  does  not 
so  bind  His  grace  and  saving  efficacy  to  baptism  as  that, 
in  the  event  of  privation,  He  may  not  both  wish  and  be 
able  to  act  extraordinarily.  We  distinguish,  then,  be- 
tween necessity  on  God 's  part  and  on  our  part  ;  between 
the  case  of  privatio?i  and  the  ordinary  way  ;  and  also  be- 
tween infants  born  in  the  Church  and  out  of  the  Church. 
Concerning  infants  born  out  of  the  Church,  we  say 
with  the  apostle  (i  Cor.  v.  12,  13),  '  For  what  have  f 
to  do  with  judging  them  that  are  without  ?  Do  not 
you  judge  them  that  are  within  ?  For  them  that  are 
without  God  judgeth.'     Wherefore,  since  there  is  no 

1  Com.  in  Gen.,  c.  17.  2  Christliche  Bedenken. 

3  See  for  several  such*  quotations  brought  together,  Laurence, 
Bampton  Lectures,  1804,  ed.  1S20,  p.  272.  Also  Gerhard  as  in  next 
note. 

4  Ed.  Cotta,  vol.  ix.,  p.  284. 


170         THE  DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

promise  concerning  them,  we  commit  them  to  God's 
judgment  ;  and  yet  we  hold  to  no  place  intermediate 
between  heaven  and  hell,  concerning  which  there  is 
utter  silence  in  Scripture.  But  concerning  infants 
born  in  the  Church  we  have  better  hope.  Pious  par- 
ents properly  bring  their  children  as  soon  as  possible  to 
baptism  as  the  ordinary  means  of  regeneration,  and 
offer  them  in  baptism  to  Christ  ;  and  those  who  are 
negligent  in  this,  so  as  through  lack  of  care  or  wicked 
contempt  for  the  sacrament  to  deprive  their  children 
of  baptism,  shall  hereafter  render  a  very  heavy  account 
to  God,  since  they  have  '  despised  the  counsel  of  God  ' 
(Luke  vii.  30).  Yet  neither  can  nor  ought  we  rashly 
to  condemn  those  infants  which  die  in  their  mothers' 
wombs  or  by  some  sudden  accident  before  they  receive 
baptism,  but  may  rather  hold  that  the  prayers  of  pious 
parents,  or,  if  the  parents  are  negligent  of  this,  the 
prayers  of  the  Church  poured  out  for  these  infants 
are  clemently  heard,  and  they  are  received  by  God  into 
grace  and  life." 

From  this  passage  we  may  learn  not  only  the  cordial 
acceptance  given  by  Lutheran  theologians  to  the  ex- 
tension of  the  baptism  of  intention  to  infants,  but  also 
the  historical  attitude  of  Lutheranism  toward  the  en- 
tirely different  question  of  the  fate  of  infants  dying  out- 
side the  pale  of  the  Church  and  the  reach  of  its  ordi- 
nances. These  infants  are  a  multitude  so  vast  that  it 
is  wholly  unreasonable  to  suppose  them  (like  Chris- 
tians' children  deprived  of  baptism)  simply  exceptions 
to  the  rule  laid  down  in  the  Augsburg  Confession. 
And  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  the  Lutheran  Confessions 
extend  no  hope  for  them.  It  is  doubtful  whether  it 
can  even  be  said  that  they  leave  room  for  hope  for 
them.  Melanchthon  in  the  Apology  is  no  doubt  arguing 
against  the  Anabaptists,  and  intends  to  prove  only  that 
children  should  be  baptized  ;  but  his  words  in  explana- 
tion of  Art.  IX.  deserve  consideration  in  this  connec- 
tion also — where  he  argues  that  "  the  promise  of  salva- 
tion" "  does  not  pertain  to  those  who  are  without  the 
Church  of  Christ,  where  there  is  neither  the  Word  nor 
the  Sacraments,  because  the  kingdom  of  Christ  exists 


THE  LUTHERAN    TEACHING.  171 

only  with  the  Word  and  the  Sacraments."  Luther's 
personal  opinion  as  to  the  fate  of  heathen  children 
dying  in  infancy  is  in  doubt  :  now  he  expresses  the 
hope  that  the  good  and  gracious  God  may  have  some- 
thing good  in  view  for  them  ; '  and  again/though  leav- 
ing it  to  the  future  to  decide,  he  only  expects  some- 
thing milder  for  them  than  for  the  adults  outside  the 
Church  : a  and  Bugenhagen,  under  his  eye,  contrasts 
the  children  of  Turks  and  Jews  with  those  of  Chris- 
tians, as  not  sharers  in  salvation  because  not  in  Christ.3 
From  the  very  first  the  opinion  of  the  theologians  was 
divided  on  the  subject.  (1)  Some  held  that  all  infants 
except  those  baptized  in  fact  or  intention  are  lost,  and 
ascribed  to  them,  of  course — for  this  was  the  Prot- 
estant view  of  the  desert  of  original  sin — both  privative 
and  positive  punishment.  This  party  included  such 
theologians  as  Quistorpius,  Calovius,  Fechter,  Zeibi- 
chius,  Buddeus.  (2)  Others  judged  that  we  may  cher- 
ish the  best  of  hope  for  their  salvation.  Here  belong 
Dannhauer,  Hulsemann,  Scherzer,  J.  A.  Osiander, 
Wagner,  Musaeus,  Cotta,  and  Spener.  (3)  But  the 
great  body  of  Lutherans,  including  such  names  as  Ger- 
hard, Calixtus,  Meisner,  Baldwin,  Bechmann,  Hoff- 
mann, Hunnius,  held  that  nothing  is  clearly  revealed 
as  to  the  fate  of  such  infants,  and  they  must  be  left  to 
the  judgment  of  God.  (a)  Some  of  these,  like  Hun- 
nius, were  inclined  to  believe  that  they  will  be  saved. 
{b)  Others,  with  more  (like  Hoffmann)  or  less  (like  Ger- 
hard) clearness,  were  rather  inclined  to  believe  they 
will  be  lost.  But  all  of  them  alike  held  that  the  means 
for  a  certain  decision  are  not  in  our  hands.4  Thus 
Hunnius  says  : 6  "  That  the  infants  of  Gentiles,  outside 
the  Church,  are  saved,  we  cannot  pronounce  as  certain, 
since  there  exists  nothing  definite  in  the  Scriptures 
concerning  the  matter  ;  so  neither  do  I  dare  simply 
to    assert    that    these    children    are    indiscriminately 

1  Cf.  Dorner,  Hist.  Prot.  TheoL,  i.,  171. 
s  Cf.  Laurence,  Bampton  Lectures,  p.  272. 

3  Lbz'd. 

4  This  classification  is  taken  from  Cotta  (Gerhard's  Loci,  ix.,  282). 
6  Qucest.  in  cap.  vii.  Gen. 


172  THE  DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATIOA 

damned.  .  .  .  Let  us  commit  them,  therefore,  to  the 
judgment  of  God."  And  Hoffmann  says  :  '  "  On  the 
question,  whether  the  infants  of  the  heathen  nations 
are  lost,  most  of  our  theologians  prefer  to  suspend 
their  judgment.  To  affirm  as  a  certain  thing  that  they 
are  lost  could  not  be  done  without  rashness." 

This  cautious  agnostic  position  has  the  best  right  to 
be  called  the  historical  Lutheran  attitude  on  the  subject. 
It  is  even  the  highest  position  thoroughly  consistent 
with  the  genius  of  the  Lutheran  system  and  the  stress 
which  it  lays  on  the  means  of  grace.  The  drift  in  more 
modern  times  has,  however,  been  decidedly  in  the 
direction  of  affirming  the  salvation  of  all  that  die  in 
infancy,  on  grounds  identical  with  those  pleaded  by 
this  party  from  the  beginning — the  infinite  mercy  of 
God,  the  universality  of  the  atonement,  the  inability  of 
infants  to  resist  grace,  their  guiltlessness  of  despising 
the  ordinance,  and  the  like.2  Even  so,  however,  care- 
ful modern  Lutherans  moderate  their  assertions.  They 
may  affirm  that  "  it  is  not  the  doctrine  of  our  Confes- 
sion that  any  human  creature  has  ever  been  or  ever 
will  be  lost  purely  for  original  sin  ;"  3  but  they  speak 
of  the  matter  as  a  "  dark"  or  a  "  difficult  question,"  * 
and  suspend  the  salvation  of  such  infants  on  an  "  ex- 
traordinary" and  "  uncovenanted"  exercise  of  God's 
mercy.5  We  cannot  rise  to  a  conviction  ora  "  faith" 
in  the  matter,  but  may  attain  to  a  "  well-grounded 
hope,"  based  on  our  apprehension  of  God's  all-embrac- 
ing mercy.6  In  short,  it  is  not  contended  that  the  Lu- 
theran doctrine  lays  a  foundation  for  a  conviction  of  the 
salvation  of  all  infants  dying  in  infancy  ;  at  the  best  it 
is  held  to  leave  open  an  uncontradicted  hope.  We  are 
afraid  we  must  say  more  :  it  seems  to  contradict  this 
hope.  For  should  this  hope  prove  true,  it  would  no 
longer  be  true  that  "  baptism  is  necessary  to  salvation" 
even  ordinarily  ;  the  exception  would  be  the  rule.     Nor 

1  See  Krauth,  Co7iservative  Reformation,  p.  433. 

s  Compare  the  statements  in  Cotta  and  Krauth,  locc.  citt. 

3  Krauth,  I.e.,  p.  429.  4  lb.,  pp.  561-563. 

5  lb.,  pp.  430,  437. 

6  lb.,  Infant  Salvation  in  the  Calvinistic  System,  p.  22. 


THE  LUTHERAN    TEACHING.  173 

would  the  fundamental  conception  of  the  Lutheran  the- 
ory of  salvation — that  grace  is  in  the  means  of  grace — 
be  longer  tenable.  The  logic  of  the  Lutheran  system 
leaves  little  room  for  the  salvation  of  all  infants,  dying 
in  infancy,  and  if  their  salvation  should  prove  to  be  a 
fact,  the  integrity  of  the  system  is  endangered. 

That  it  is  not  merely  the  letter  of  the  Lutheran  for- 
mularies which  needs  to  be  transcended,  if  we  are  to 
cherish  a  hope  for  the  salvation  of  all  infants  dying 
such,  but  the  distinctive  principle  of  the  Lutheran  sys- 
tem, is  doubtless  the  cause  of  the  great  embarrassment 
exhibited  by  Lutheran  writers  in  dealing  with  this 
problem,  and  of  the  extraordinary  expedients  which 
are  sometimes  resorted  to  for  its  solution.  Thus,  for 
example,  Klieforth  knows  nothing  better  to  suggest 
than  that  unbaptized  children  dying  in  their  infancy, 
whether  children  of  Christian  parents  or  of  infidel, 
stand  in  the  same  category  with  adult  heathen,  and  are 
to  have  an  opportunity  to  exercise  saving  faith  when 
the  Lord  calls  them  before  Him  for  judgment  on  His 
second  coming.  And  the  genial  Norse  missionary 
bishop  Dahle,  though  he  recognizes  the  scriptural  dis- 
tinction between  the  infants  ot  Christian  and  those  ot 
heathen  parents  (1  Cor.  vii.  14),  seeks  in  vain  to  ground 
a  hope  on  which  he  may  rest  his  heart  even  for  Chris- 
tians' infants  ;  and  ends  by  falling  back  on  the  conjec- 
ture of  the  mediating  theology  of  an  opportunity  for 
receiving  Christ  extended  in  the  future  life  to  those 
who  have  not  enjoyed  that  opportunity  here  ;  thus,  in 
other  words,  in  his  own  way  also  assimilating  the  in- 
fant children  of  Christians  with  heathen.  "  The  sum 
of  the  whole,"  he  says,  in  concluding  his  discussion, 
"  is  that  we  may  entertain  a  hope  of  salvation  and  bliss 
for  our  unbaptized  children  immediately  after  death, 
yet  not  more  than  a  hope.  But  the  question  is  still  un- 
answered. Under  any  circumstances  we  have  this  con- 
solation :  that  if  the  hope  shall  be  unfounded  such  chil- 
dren will  at  least  have  the  opportunity  of  the  uncalled 
at  some  time  to  receive  God's  gracious  call."1     For 

1  Lars  Nielsen  Dahle,  Life  After  Death,  etc.,  translated  from  the 
Norse  by  the  Rev.  John  Beveridge,  M.A.,  B.D.  (Edinburgh,.!  896),  p.  227. 


174  THE  DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

the  Lutheran  the  question  is  thus  still  unanswered,  and 
must  remain  unanswered.  The  restrained  paragraph 
with  which  Dahle  opens  his  discussion  appears,  indeed, 
to  put  into  words  what  every  Lutheran  must  feel  : 
' '  This  is  a  very  difficult— indeed,  we  might  almost  say 
a  hitherto  unanswered — question,"  he  says.  ' '  All  sal- 
vation is  connected  with  Christ.  But  we  come  into 
connection  with  Him  only  through  the  means  of  grace  ; 
at  all  events,  we  do  not  know  of  any  other  way  to 
Christ  than  this.  Now,  the  means  of  grace  are  the 
Word  and  the  sacraments.  But  the  child  is  not  sus- 
ceptible to  such  means  of  grace  as  are  afforded  in  the 
Word  of  God,  which  directs  itself  to  the  developed  per- 
sonal life  ;  and  so  we  have  only  the  sacraments  left.  Of 
these,  baptism  is  the  one  which  incorporates  into  fel- 
lowship with  Christ,  and  thereby  with  the  Triune  God, 
into  whose  name  the  candidate  is  baptized  (Matt,  xxvii. 
19).  Now,  if  a  child  is  not  susceptible  to  the  means  of 
grace  of  the  Word,  and  does  not  receive  the  opportu- 
nity of  baptism,  is  there  any  means  whereby  it  can 
come  into  connection  with  Christ,  apart  from  whom 
there  is  no  salvation  ?  This  is  the  knot  which  no  one 
yet  has  been  able  to  undo."  ' 

The  Anglican  Position. 

A  similar  difficulty  has  been  experienced  by  all 
types  of  Protestant  thought  in  which  the  Roman  idea  of 
the  Church,  as  primarily  an  external  body,  has  been 
incompletely  reformed.  This  may  be  illustrated,  for 
example,  from  the  history  of  opinion  in  the  Church  of 
England.  The  Thirty-nine  Articles  in  their  final 
form  are  thoroughly  Protestant  and  Reformed.  And 
many  of  the  greatest  English  theologians,  from  the  very 
earliest  days  of  the  Reformation,  even  among  those  not 
most  closely  affiliated  with  Geneva,  have  repudiated 
the  "  scrupulous  superstition"  2  of  the  Church  of  Rome 

1  Lars  Nielsen  Dahle,  Life  After  Death,  translated  from  the 
Norse  by  the  Rev.  John  Beveridge,  M.A.,  B.D.  (Edinburgh,  1896), 
pp.  219,  220. 

2  Reform.  Legum ;  de  Baptismo  :  "  Illorum  etiam  videri  debet 
scrupulosa  superstitio,  qui  Dei  gratiam  et  Spiritum  Sanctum  tanto- 


THE  ANGLICAN  POSITION.  1 75 

as  to  the  fate  of  infants  dying  unbaptized.  But  such 
repudiation  neither  was  immediate,  nor  has  it  ever 
been  universal.  And  it  must  needs  be  confessed  that 
this  "  scrupulous  superstition"  was  so  deeply  imbedded 
in  the  forms  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  that  it 
has  survived  all  the  changes  which  successive  revis- 
ions have  brought  to  its  language,  and  remains  to-day 
the  natural  implication  of  its  Baptismal  Offices. 

The  history  of  the  formularies  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land begins  with  the  publication  in  1536  of  the  some- 
what more  than  semi- Romish  Articles  devised  by  the 
Kinges  Highnes  Mqfestie,  to  stably  she  Christen  quietnes  and 
unitie  amonge  us,  and  to  avoyde  contentious  opinions,  which 
articles  be  also  approved  by  the  consent  and  determination 
of  the  hole  clergie  of  this  realme?  commonly  known  as 
the  "  Ten  Articles."  These  Articles  explicitly  teach 
the  twin  doctrines  of  baptismal  regeneration  and  the 
necessity  of  baptism  for  salvation.  Among  the  things 
which  "ought  and  must  of  necessity"  be  believed  re- 
garding baptism,  they  tell  us,  is  "  that  it  is  offered  unto 
all  men,  as  well  infants  as  such  as  have  the  use  of  rea- 
son, that  by  baptism  they  shall  have  remission  of  sins, 
and  the  grace  and  favourof  God  ;"  that  it  is  "  by  virtue 
of  that  holy  sacrament"  that  men  obtain  "  the  grace  and 
remission  of  all  their  sins  ;"  and  that  it  is  "  in  and  by 
this  said  sacrament"  which  they  shall  receive,"  that 
' '  God  the  Father  giveth  unto  them,  for  His  son  Jesus 
Christ's  sake,  remission  of  all  their  sins,  and  the  grace 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  whereby  they  be  newly  regener- 
ated and  made  the  very  children  of  God."     Accord- 

pere  cum  sacramentonim  dementis  colligant,  ut  plane  affirment, 
nullum  Christianorum  infantem  salutem  esse  consecuturum,  qui  prius 
morte  fuerit  occupatus,  quam  ad  Baptismum  adduci  potuerit :  quod 
longe  secus  habere  judicamus."  This  code  of  laws  seems  to  have 
been  drawn  up  by  a  commission  with  Cranmer  at  the  head  of  it.  It 
was  published  by  Parker  in  15  71. 

'  "  As  seen  by  us,  from  the  position  we  now  occupy,"  says  Hard- 
wick  (A  History  of  the  Articles  of  Religion,  etc.  Third  ed.  revised 
by  the  Rev.  Francis  Procter,  M.A.,  etc.  London:  Bell,  1876, 
p.  42),  "  these  articles  belong  to  a  transition-period.  They  embody 
the  ideas  of  men  who  were  emerging  gradually  into  a  different  sphere 
of  thought,  who  could  not  for  the  present  contemplate  the  truth  they 
were  recovering,  either  in  its  harmonies  or  contrasts,  and  who  conse- 


176  THE  DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

ingly  they  "  ought  and  must  of  necessity"  also  believe 
that  "  the  sacrament  of  baptism  was  instituted  and  or- 
dained in  the  New  Testament  by  our  Saviour  Jesu 
Christ,  as  a  thing  necessary  for  the  attaining  of  ever- 
lasting life  ;"  that  original  sin  cannot  be  remitted 
"  but  by  the  sacrament  of  baptism  ;"  and  that,  there- 
fore, since  "  the  promise  of  grace  and  everlasting  life 
(which  promise  is  adjoined  unto  this  sacrament  of 
baptism)  pertaineth  not  only  unto  such  as  have  the  use 
of  reason,  but  also  to  infants,  innocents,  and  children," 
they  "  ought  therefore  and  must  needs  be  baptized," 
and  "  by  the  sacrament  of  baptism,  they  do  also  obtain 
remission  of  their  sins,  the  grace  and  favour  of  God, 
and  be  made  thereby  the  very  sons  and  children  of 
God  ;"  "  insomuch  as  infants  and  children  dying  in 
their  infancy  shall  undoubtedly  be  saved  thereby,  and 
else  not."'  The  express  assertion  of  the  loss  of  all 
unbaptized  infants  included  in  these  last  words  was 
taken  over  from  the  "  Ten  Articles"  into  TJie  Institu- 
tion of  the  Christian  Man,  commonly  called  "  The 
Bishop's  Book,"  which  was  published  in  1537  ;'  and 
thence,  though  with  the  omission  of  the  final  words  in 
which  the  statement  reaches  its  climax,  into  The  Neces- 
sary Doctrine  and  Erudition  of  Any  Christian  Man,  com- 
monly called  "  The  King's  Book,"  which  was  published 
in  1543. 3  Here  its  career  in  the  doctrinal  formularies 
ceased. 

quently  did  not  shrink  from  acquiescing  in  accommodations  and  con- 
cessions, which  to  riper  understandings  might  have  seemed  like  the 
betrayal  of  a  sacred  trust."  Dr.  Schakf  repels  Dixon's  description 
{History  of  the  Reformation,  i.,  p.  415)  of  these  articles  as  bearing 
"  the  character  of  a  compromise  between  the  old  and  the  new  learn- 
ing." "  They  are  essentially  Romish,"  he  says  (Creeds  of  Christen- 
dom, i.,  611),  "  with  the  Pope  left  out  in  the  cold  ;"  and  he  endorses 
Foxe's  characterization  of  them  (which  Hardwick  deprecates)  as  in- 
tended for  "  weakelings,  which  were  newely  weyned  from  their 
mother's  milke  of  Rome." 

1  The  full  text  may  be  conveniently  read  in  Hardwick,  as  above, 
p.  242  sq. 

2  The  text  may  be  seen  in  Bishop  Lloyd's  Formularies  of  Faith  in 
the  Reign  of  Henry  VIII.,  p.  1. 

3  Ibia.  Cf.  Francis  Procter,  A  History  of  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  etc.  15th  ed.  London  and  New  York  :  Macmillan  &  Co., 
1881,  pp.  384,  385,  note  1. 


THE  ANGLICAN  POSITION.  177 

But  it  still  had  a  part  to  play  in  the  liturgical  forms 
of  the  Church  of  England.  The  first  Book  of  Common 
Prayer  was  published  in  1549,  and  in  it,  among  the 
rubrics  which  precede  the  Order  of  Confirmation,  is 
found  this  parargaph  :  "  And  that  no  man  shall  think 
that  any  detriment  shall  come  to  children  by  deferring 
of  their  confirmation  :  he  shall  know  for  truth,  that  it 
is  certain  by  God's  word,  that  children  being  baptized 
(if  they  depart  out  of  this  life  in  their  infancy)  are  un- 
doubtedly saved."1  In  the  Prayer  Book  for  1552  this 
was  so  far  altered  that  its  latter  portion  reads,  "  That 
children  being  baptized  have  all  things  necessary  for 
their  salvation,  and  be  undoubtedly  saved  ;"2  and  so  it 
stands  in  the  Elizabethan  Prayer  Book  of  1559,  and 
substantially  in  later  issues,  until  in  the  Prayer  Book 
of  1661  it  was  transferred  to  the  end  of  the  order  for 
the  Public  Baptism  of  Infants  in  the  form  :  "  It  is  cer- 
tain by  God's  Word,  that  Children  which  are  baptized, 
dying  before  they  commit  actual  sin,  are  undoubtedly 
saved."  Thus  it  still  remains  in  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer  according  to  the  use  of  the  Church  of  England, 
although  it  has  dropped  out  of  the  Prayer  Book  ac- 
cording to  the  use  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  United  States  of  America. 

The  successive  alterations  in  this  statement,  no 
doubt,  mark  in  a  general  way  the  growing  Protestant 
sentiment  in  the  Church  of  England,  although  it  is 
noteworthy  that  the  omission  of  the  most  obnoxious 
words,  "  and  else  not,"  in  which  the  condemnation  of 
unbaptized  infants,  dying  in  infancy,  is  made  express, 
first  occurs  in  the  reactionary  "  King's  Book,"  while 
the  effect  of  the  transposition  of  the  rubric  from  the 
Confirmation  Service  to  that  for  Baptism,  which  took 
place  so  late  as  1661,  was  distinctly  reactionary.  Its 
primary  effect,  standing  in  the  Confirmation  Service, 

1  The  Two  Liturgies,  A.D.  1549  and  A.D.  1552,  etc.,  edited  for 
the  Parker  Society,  by  the  Rev,  Joseph  Ketley,  M.A.,  etc.  (Cam- 
bridge, 1844,  p.  121). 

1  Ibid.,  p.  295.  The  two  may  be  found  together  in  The  Two 
Books  of  Common  Prayer  set  forth  .  .  .  in  the  Reign  of  King  Ed- 
ward the  Sixth,  by  Edward  Cardwell,  D.D.,  etc.  (Oxford,  1852, 
P-  544)- 


178  THE  DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

was  to  declare  that  confirmation  is  not  necessary  to 
salvation  ;  and  any  implication  which  may  be  thought  to 
reside  in  the  words  of  the  necessity  of  baptism  to  sal- 
vation was  entirely  incidental.  While,  standing  at  the 
end  of  the  Baptismal  Service,  its  primary  effect  seems 
to  be  to  declare  the  certain  efficacy  of  baptism  when 
administered  to  infants,  and  the  implication  of  the  loss 
of  the  unbaptized  infants  dying  in  infancy  is  certainly 
more  natural,  even  if  not  necessary.  The  explanation 
of  this  reactionary  alteration  is  to  be  found,  of  course, 
in  the  general  spirit  which  governed  the  revision  of 
1661,  which  not  only  was  hostile  to  the  more  Protestant 
party  in  the  Church,  but  was  determined  upon  all  pos- 
sible insult  and  degradation  to  it.1 

The  more  Protestant  party  had,  of  course,  never  been 
satisfied  with  this  rubric  ;  and  it  had,  of  late,  necessarily 
received  its  share  of  criticism.  The  committee  of  di- 
vines appointed  by  the  House  of  Lords  in  1641  had 
proposed  the  omission  from  it  of  the  words,  ' '  and  be 
undoubtedly  saved."3  The  Presbyterian  divines  at 
the  Savoy  Conference  had  commented  on  it  :  "  Al- 
though we  charitably  suppose  the  meaning  of  these 
words  was  only  to  exclude  the  necessity  of  any  other 
sacraments  to  baptized  infants  ;  yet  these  words 
are  dangerous  as  to  the  misleading  of  the  vulgar,  and 
therefore  we  desire   they  may  be  expunged."  8     The 

1  Observe  how  even  Cardweli,  speaks  of  the  general  spirit  of  this 
revision  {A  History  of  Conferences  and  other  Proceedings  connected 
with  the  Revision  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  etc.  Third  ed. 
Oxford,  1849,  pp.  387  sq.)  and  the  warning  he  draws  from  it  (pp.  463 
sq.)  :  "  Let  it  be  remembered,  also,  on  the  part  of  nonconformists, 
that  whenever  objection  is  made  against  any  expressions  as  ambigu- 
ous or  indefinite,  other  parties,  of  different  and  even  opposite  opin- 
ions, will  be  as  ready  as  they  themselves  are,  to  offer  amendments. 
In  such  a  case,  the  result  will  probably  be  that  phrases,  which  had 
previously  afforded  a  common  shelter  to  both,  will  be  made  precise 
and  contracted  in  accordance  with  the  wishes  of  the  more  rigid  inter- 
preters. Let  it  be  remembered  that  if  one  party  complain  of  a  strict 
adherence  to  forms  and  a  tendency  toward  superstition,  another 
party,  more  compact,  more  learned,  and  more  resolute,  may  call  for 
the  restoration  of  prayers  and  usages  which  once  found  a  place  in  the 
liturgy,  and  were  removed  by  the  fathers  of  the  reformation  as  too 
nearly  allied  to  Romanism." 

5  Cardwell,  as  cited,  p,  276.  3  Ibid.,  p.  327. 


THE  ANGLICAN  POSITION.  179 

answer  of  the  bishops  was  not  conciliatory  :  "It  is 
evident  that  the  meaning  of  these  words  is,  that  chil- 
dren baptized,  and  dying  before  they  commit  actual 
sin,  are  undoubtedly  saved,  though  they  be  not  con- 
firmed :  wherein  we  see  not  what  danger  there  can 
be  of  misleading  the  vulgar  by  teaching  them  truth. 
But  there  may  be  danger  in  this  desire  of  hav- 
ing these  words  expunged,  as  if  they  were  false  ;  for 
St.  Austin  says  he  is  an  infidel  that  denies  them  to 
be  true.  Ep.  23.  ad  Bonifac."1  This  defence  of  the 
rubric  obviously  is  ad  rem  only  in  the  form  and  place 
which  it  had  in  the  Confirmation  Service.  When,  as 
was  immediately  done,  it  was  removed  from  its  place 
in  the  Confirmation  Service  and,  curtailed  of  all  refer- 
ence to  confirmation,  inserted  into  the  Baptismal  Order 
in  the  sharply  assertive  form  :  "  It  is  certain  by  God's 
Word,  that  Children  which  are  baptized,  dying  before 
they  commit  actual  sin,  are  undoubtedly  saved,"  it 
must  be  accounted  one  of  the  alterations  designed  to 
exclude  a  Protestant  interpretation  of  the  Book  of 
Common  Prayer  ;  and  as,  in  the  intention  of  the  authors 
of  the  change  at  all  events,  no  longer  open  to  the  inter- 
pretation that  it  does  not  imply  the  necessity  of  bap- 
tism for  salvation  but  only  asserts  that  confirmation  is 
not  necessary  to  salvation.  It  was  obviously  intended 
by  those  who  gave  it  its  present  form  and  place  to 

1  Cardwell,  as  cited,  p.  358.  The  reference  to  Augustine  is  to  Ep.  98 
in  the  Benedictine  enumeration  (§  10).  Augustine  is  discussing  the  pro- 
priety and  effect  of  baptism  prior  to  the  exercise  of  active  faith  on 
the  part  of  the  recipient,  and  says  :  ' '  During  the  time  in  which  he  is 
by  reason  of  youth  unable  to  do  this,  the  sacrament  will  avail  for  his 
protection  against  adverse  powers,  and  will  avail  so  much  on  his 
behalf,  that  if  before  he  arrives  at  the  use  of  reason  he  depart  from 
this  life,  he  is  delivered  by  Christian  help,  namely,  by  the  love  of 
the  Church,  commending  him  through  the  sacrament  unto  God,  from 
that  condemnation  which  by  one  man  entered  into  the  world.  He 
who  does  not  believe  this,  and  thinks  that  it  is  impossible,  is  assuredly 
an  unbeliever,  although  he  may  have  received  the  sacrament  of 
faith  ;  and  far  before  him  in  merit  is  the  infant  which,  though  not 
yet  possessing  a  faith  helped  by  the  understanding,  is  not  obstructing 
faith  by  any  antagonism  of  the  understanding,  and  therefore  receives 
with  profit  the  sacrament  of  faith"  (translation  of  the  Rev.  J.  G.  Cun- 
ningham, M.A.,  in  The  Nicene  and  Post-Nicene  Fathers,  first  series, 
vol.  i.,  p.  410). 


180         THE  DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

assert  baptismal  regeneration,  and  to  leave  whatever 
implications  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration 
may  include  as  the  natural  teaching  of  the  rubric.    . 

Nor  can  it  be  denied  that,  as  assertorial  of  bap- 
tismal regeneration,  the  rubric  finds  a  very  natural 
place  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer.  It  was  inevita- 
ble that  in  the  beginning  of  the  Reformation  movement 
remainders  of  the  unreformed  doctrine  of  baptismal 
regeneration  should  intrench  themselves  in  the  liturgi- 
cal offices  of  the  Church.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
assumption  of  this  doctrine  underlay  a  good  deal  of 
the  language  relative  to  baptism  in  the  first  Prayer 
Book  (1549).1  This  may  be  true  even  of  the  words  of 
the  opening  address,  which  recite  the  fact  of  original 
sin  and  declare  that  ' '  no  man  born  in  sin  can  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  God  (except  he  be  regenerate  and 
born  anew  of  water  and  the  Holy  Ghost)."  It  is  more 
clearly  true  of  the  language  of  the  opening  prayer, 
where  the  figure  of  baptism  found  in  the  flood  and  the 
passage  through  the  Red  Sea  is  developed  rather  on 
the  negative  than  on  the  positive  side  ;  and  God  is 
besought,  therefore,  to  look  mercifully  upon  these  chil- 
dren, "  that  by  this  wholesome  laver  of  regeneration, 
whatsoever  sin  is  in  them  may  be  washed  clean  away  ; 
that  they,  being  delivered  from  His  wrath,  may  be  re- 
ceived into  the  ark  of  Christ's  church,  and  so  be  saved 
from  perishing."  Similarly,  after  "  the  white  ves- 
ture" had  been  given  to  the  child  "  for  a  token  of  the 
innocence  which  by  God's  grace,  in  this  holy  sacra- 
ment of  baptism,  is  given  unto  it,"  the  priest  was  to 
bless  the  child  in  the  name  of  the  God  "  who  hath  re- 
generate it  by  water  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  hath 
given  unto  it  remission  of  all  its  sins."  When  a  child 
privately  baptized  was  brought  to  the  church  for  the 
priest  to  examine  whether  it  had  been  lawfully  bap- 
tized, if  it  were  so  decided,  the  minister  was  to  certify 
the  parents  of  their  well-doing  in  having  the  child  bap- 
tized, because  it  "is  now,  by  the  laver  of  regeneration 

1  The  quotations  that  follow  are  taken  from  the  text  as  given  by 
Cardwei.l,  The  Two  Books  of  Common  Prayer  .  .  .  in  the  Reign 
of  King  Edward  the  Sixth,  etc.,  3d  ed.     Oxford,  1852,  pp.  320  sq. 


THE  ANGLICAN  POSITION.  181 

in  baptism,  made  the  child  of  God,  and  heir  of  ever- 
lasting- life."  The  same  implication  naturally  underlay 
also  the  whole  form  for  the  sanctification  of  the  font, 
which  appears  only  in  this  earliest  of  Anglican  Prayer 
Books.  In  it  God  is  said  to  have  "  ordained  the  ele- 
ment of  water  for  the  regeneration  of  His  faithful  peo- 
ple," and  is  asked  to  sanctify  "this  fountain  of  bap- 
tism .  .  .  that  by  the  power  of  His  word  all  those  that 
should  be  baptized  therein  might  be  spiritually  regen- 
erated and  made  the  children  of  everlasting  adoption." 
In  the  Catechism  included  in  the  Confirmation  Service, 
the  child  is  instructed  to  say  that  it  was  in  its  bap- 
tism that  it  ' '  was  made  a  member  of  Christ,  the  child 
of  God,  and  the  inheritor  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;" 
while  in  the  Invocation  in  the  Confirmation  Service 
itself  God  is  addressed  as  He  "  who  has  vouchsafed  to 
regenerate  these  His  servants  of  water  and  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  also  has  given  unto  them  forgiveness  of  all 
their  sins." 

The  revising  hand  was,  to  be  sure,  as  busy  with  this 
as  with  other  portions  of  the  Prayer  Book.  In  par- 
ticular, the  opening  prayer  was  already  in  the  second 
Prayer  Book  (1552)  brought  into  substantially  the  form 
which  it  still  preserves  :  and  this  involved  not  only 
the  omission  of  the  words,  "  and  so  saved  from  perish- 
ing"— "  expressions,"  as  even  Laurence  is  forced  to 
admit,  "  too  unequivocal  to  be  misconceived,"  in 
their  exclusion  of  all  unbaptized  infants  from  salva- 
tion1— but  also  a  recasting  of  the  whole  tone  of  the 
prayer.  But  the  revision  was  never  complete  enough 
to  exscind  the  underlying  doctrine  of  baptismal  regen- 
eration ;  and,  in  the  shifting  opinion  of  the  Church  of 
England,  after  a  while  a  reaction  set  in  in  its  favor, 
which  not  only  resisted  all  attempts  to  eliminate  it,a 

1  Laurence,  Bampton  Lectures  for  1804,  rev.  ed.,  Oxford,  1820, 
p.  71.  Compare  Procter,  A  History  of  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  15th  ed,  1881,  p.  374,  note  1  ;  Schaff,  Creeds  of  Christen- 
dom, i.,  642. 

s  It  was  naturally  against  this  doctrine  that  the  "  Puritan  party" 
directed  their  most  persistent  objection.  See  the  form  of  their  objec- 
tions in  the  documents  printed  by  Cardwell,  A  History  of  Confer- 


1 82  THE  DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

but  added  new  expressions  of  it.1  So  it  came  about 
that  when  the  Presbyterians  at  the  Savoy  Conference 
represented  it  as  a  hardship  that  ministers  should  "  be 
forced  to  pronounce  all  baptized  infants  to  be  regener- 
ate by  the  Holy  Ghost,  whether  they  be  the  children 
of  Christians  or  not,"  and  protested  that  they  could 
not  "  in  faith  say,"  as  required  to  say  in  the  Thanks- 
giving-, "  that  every  child  that  is  baptized  is  '  regener- 
ated by  God's  Holy  Spirit,'  "  2  the  bishops'  reply  sim- 
ply asserts  in  terms  the  obnoxious  doctrine  :  "  Seeing 
that  God's  sacraments  have  their  effects,  where  the  re- 
ceiver doth  not  '  ponere  obicem,'  put  any  bar  against 
them  (which  children  cannot  do)  ;  we  may  say  in  faith 
of  every  child  that  is  baptized,  that  it  is  regenerated  by 
God's  Holy  Spirit."  3  There  seems  to  be  little  room 
for  doubting,  therefore,  that  these  expressions  were 
retained  by  the  revisers  of  1661  not  as  "  ambiguous 
and  indefinite,"  but  as  distinct  enunciations,  and  just 
because  they  were  judged  to  be  distinct  enunciations, 
of  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration.  We  must 
adjudge  Laurence  right,  therefore,  in  finding  this  doc- 
trine plainly  taught  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  as 
now  in  use  ;  nor  can  we  see  how  his  summing  up  of 
the  case  can  be  set  aside.  "  In  the  prayer  after  Bap- 
tism," he  says,  "  every  child  is  expressly  declared  to 
be  regenerated  :  '  We  yield  thee  hearty  thanks,  most 
merciful  Father,  that  it  hath  pleased  thee  to  regenerate 
this  infant  with  thy  Holy  Spirit,  to  receive  him  for 
thine  own  child  by  adoption,  and  to  incorporate  him 
into  thy  holy  Church.'  And  in  the  Office  of  private 
Baptism  it  is  unreservedly  stated,  that  he  '  is  now  by 
the  laver  of  regeneration  in  Baptism  received  into  the 
number  of  the  children  of  God,  and  heirs  of  everlasting 
life.'     That  all  baptized  children  are   not  nominally, 

ences,  etc.,  3d  ed.,  Oxford,  1849,  pp.  266,  276,  325,  326  ;  and  the  an- 
swers of  the  bishops,  pp.  357  and  358. 

1  For  example,  the  thanksgiving  address  and  prayer  after  baptism 
inserted  in  the  Prayer  Book  of  1552,  which  declare  the  baptized  child 
to  be  regenerate,  and  the  questions,  at  the  end  of  the  Catechism,  on 
the  sacraments,  added  apparently  in  1604,  which  declare  that  "  we 
are  made  the  children  of  grace"  by  baptism. 

a  Cakdwell,  as  cited,  pp.  276,  325  ;  cf.  326.  3  Ibid.,  p.  356. 


THE  ANGLICAN  POSITION.  183 

but  really,  the  elect  of  God,  our  Church  Catechism 
likewise  distinctly  asserts.  '  Q.  Who  gave  you  that 
name  ?  A.  My  Godfathers  and  Godmothers  in  my  Bap- 
tism, wherein  I  was  made  a  member  of  Christ,  the  child 
of  God,  and  an  inheritor  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.''  .  .  . 
Nor  is  the  position,  that  an  actual  regeneration  always 
takes  place  confined  to  our  Baptismal  service,  but  also 
subsequently  recognized  in  the  Order  of  Confirmation, 
the  first  prayer  of  which  thus  commences  :  '  Almighty 
and  everlasting  God,  who  hast  vouchsafed  to  regenerate 
these  thy  servants  by  water,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,''  "  etc. 
"  Surely,"  he  adds,  with  some  justice,  "  it  requires 
something  more  than  a  common  share  of  ingenuity  to 
pervert  language  like  this  from  its  plain  grammatical 
sense,  into  one  directly  repugnant."1 

On  the  basis  of  this  doctrine  of  baptismal  regenera- 
tion, thus  clearly  implied  in  her  forms  of  worship  and 
firmly  retained  in  their  latest  revision,  the  Church  of 
England  is  justified  in  asserting  with  the  emphasis  with 
which  the  rubric  at  the  close  of  the  Baptismal  Service 
asserts  it,  that"  it  is  certain"  "  that  Children  which 
are  baptized,  dying  before  they  commit  actual  sin,  are 
undoubtedly  saved."  Whether,  however,  this  asser- 
tion carries  with  it,  as  Laurence  contends,  no  implica- 
tion of  the  loss  of  those  who  die  unbaptized,  is  more 
questionable."  The  mere  change  of  language  from  the 
earlier  form  of  "  children  being  baptized"  into  the 
more  distinguishing  seventeenth-century  form  of  "  chil- 
dren which  are  baptized,"  bears  a  contrary  sugges- 
tion. And  the  arguments  which  Laurence  adduces 
from  the  known  opinions  of  Cranmer  and  his  coadju- 
tors, and  from  the  elimination  from  the  earlier  forms, 
under  their  hand,  of  phrases  which  assert  the  necessity 
of  baptism  to  salvation,  are  vitiated  by  the  fatal  flaw 

1  Op.  cit  ,  pp.  440,  441. 

8  Op  cit.,  pp.  70  and  176.  Laurence  contends  that  "  the  Reformers" 
intended  by  the  language  of  the  Prayer  Book  in  no  way  "  to  establish 
any  opinion  inconsistent  with  the  salvation  of  infants  unbaptized  :" 
"  the  very  reverse  of  this  is  the  fact,"  he  thinks.  And  thus  it  has 
become  customary  to  speak.  So,  e.g.,  Procter,  Op.  cit.,  p.  384, 
note  1  :  and  even  Blunt,  The  Annotated  Book  of  Common  Prayer 
(London,  1866),  ii.,  230,  although  himself  inclining  to  believe  the  loss 


1 84  THE  DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

that  he  neglects  to  distinguish  times  and  seasons.1 
That  the  leaders  of  the  Reformation  in  England  ad- 
vanced rapidly  from  a  semi-Romish,  through  a  Luther- 
an, to  a  Reformed  stage  of  opinion,  and  that  their 
handiwork  in  the  public  formularies  of  the  Church 
bears  traces  of  this  growth,  is  true  enough.  But  it 
does  not  follow  that  every  product  of  their  labors  must, 
therefore,  have  left  their  hands  in  a  form  which  repre- 
sents their  highest  attainments  in  doctrinal  thought ; 
or  that  every  one  has  reached  us  in  the  precise  form 
which  they  gave  it.  That  much  that  was  inconsistent 
with  the  better  thought  of  the  Protestant  world  was 
eliminated  from  the  first  Prayer  Book  of  1549  in  its 
passage  through  the  Book  of  1552  to  the  Elizabethan 
Book  of  1559  is  thankfully  to  be  recognized.  But  it 
must  needs  be  recognized  also  that  much  was  left  in  it 
which  was  scarcely  consistent  with  the  higher  point 
of  view  which  had  been  only  gradually  attained  by  the 
Reformers  themselves  ;  and  that  in  the  reactionary  re- 
vision of  the  seventeenth  century  this  unreformed  ele- 
ment was  even  increased.3 

of  all  infants  dying  unbaptized.  These  opinions  would  seem,  how- 
ever, to  be  too  little  determined  by  historical  considerations.  See 
further  below. 

1  In  some  cases  also  his  knowledge  of  historic  facts  was  defective. 

2  It  must  be  thankfully  recognized  also  that  a  more  complete  refor- 
mation of  doctrinal  statement  was  accomplished  in  the  doctrinal  for- 
mularies of  the  Church  of  England  than  in  her  devotional  forms. 
This  is  probably  due  to  the  singular  discontinuity  in  the  growth  of 
the  doctrinal  formularies,  by  which  the  later  Articles  were  saved  from 
corruption  through  inheritance  from  the  earlier  and  more  tentative 
attempts  to  state  the  reformed  faith.  The  first  Prayer  Book  (1549) 
stands  at  the  basis  of  and  contributes  its  substance  to  the  whole 
series  of  Prayer  Books.  But  the  first  doctrinal  formularies,  the  "  Ten 
Articles"  and  the  "Bishop's"  and  "King's  Books,"  though  they 
contributed  to  the  Prayer  Book  the  very  rubric  in  which  the  assertion 
of  baptismal  regeneration  reaches  its  climax,  had  little  effect  on  the 
development  of  the  "Articles  of  Religion."  For  them,  an  entirely 
new  beginning  was  made  in  the  "  Thirteen  Articles"  of  1538,  which 
were  formed  under  Lutheran  influence  and  rather  on  the  basis  of 
Lutheran  than  earlier  Anglican  formularies.  In  these  Articles  the 
Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  sacraments,  of  course,  finds  expression,  and 
is  sometimes  even  strengthened.  In  Article  2,  for  example,  it  is 
asserted  that  original  sin  condemns  and  brings  eternal  death  "to 
those  who  are  not  born  again  by  baptism  and  the  Holy  Spirit."  In 
Article  4  it  is  declared  that  "  by  the  word  and  sacraments,  as  by  in- 


THE  ANGLICAN  POSITION.  1 85 

Whatever  may  be  thought,  however,  of  the  implica- 
tions of  the  doctrine  taught  in  the  Prayer  Book,  this 
much  is  at  least  certain — that  the  formularies  of  the 
Church  of  England  hold  out  absolutely  no  hope  for 
the  salvation  of  infants  who  die  unbaptized.  They 
assert  with  great  strength  of  language  the  certainty  of 
the  salvation  of  all  baptized  children  dying  in  infancy. 
As  to  those  who  die  unbaptized,  they  at  the  least  pre- 
serve a  profound  silence.  "  This  assertion,"  says  Mr. 
Francis  Procter,  the  learned  historian  of  the  Book  of 
Common  Prayer,  "  carefully  avoids  all  mention  of 
children  unbaptized.  .  .  .  Our  Reformers  are  intend- 
ing to  speak  only  of  that  which  is  revealed — the  cove- 
nanted mercy  of  Almighty  God."  '  Whence  we  may 
learn  that,  in  the  judgment  of  Mr.  Procter  at  least, 
the  Prayer  Book  knows  of  no  covenanted  mercy  of 
God  for  children  dying  before  baptism,  and  can  find 
nothing  in  God's  revealed  word  which  will  justify  an 

struments,  the  Hoi)'  Spirit  is  given,  who  effects  faith  when  and  where 
it  seems  good  to  God,  in  those  who  hear  the  Gospel."  These  state- 
ments came  from  the  Augsburg  Confession.  Article  6,  "on  Bap- 
tism," teaches,  in  the  words  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  that  "  bap- 
tism is  necessary  to  salvation,  and  by  baptism  remission  of  sins  and 
the  grace  of  Christ  are  offered  to  infants  and  adults."  Then  it  is 
added  that  "  by  baptism  infants  receive  remission  of  sins  and  grace 
and  are  the  children  of  God,"  and  "  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  efficacious 
even  in  infants  and  cleanses  them" — a  statement  which  is  repeated 
in  Article  9.  These  Articles  were  never  published,  and  have  influ- 
enced the  development  of  the  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England  only 
through  their  use  by  the  framers  of  the  Forty-two  Articles  of  1553. 
The  first  draught  of  these  was  from  the  hand  of  Cranmer  himself, 
and  reflects  his  more  advanced  Reformed  opinions,  deriving  practically 
nothing  from  former  Articles  except  where  the  "  Thirteen  Articles" 
have  been  drawn  upon.  In  the  portions  at  least  which  have  been  re- 
tained in  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  the  influence  of  even  the  "  Thirteen 
Articles"  has  affected  rather  language  than  doctrine,  in  which  latter 
particular  the  new  Articles  follow  Reformed  rather  than  Lutheran 
modes  of  statement.  If  the  language  of  the  "  Thirteen  Articles,"  by 
which  the  sacraments  are  said,  "as  by  instruments,"  to  convey  the 
Holy  Spirit  who  effects  faith,  seems  to  be  repeated  here  in  the  Article 
on  Baptism  (Art.  28  of  1553,  27  of  1563-71),  it  is  along  with  an  im- 
portant caveat  by  which  the  effect  is  confined  ' '  to  those  that  receive 
baptism  rightly."  By  this  the  stress  is  thrown  rather  on  the  sub- 
jective attitude  of  the  recipient  than  on  the  mere  reception  of  the  rite. 
1  A  History  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  etc.,  15th  ed.  (Lon- 
don and  New  York,  1881),  p.  384,  note  1. 


l86  THE  DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

assured  hope  for  them.  In  the  same  spirit  is  conceived 
the  comment  in  Mr.  Blunt's  Annotated  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  which  runs  as  follows  :  "  Neither  in  this  Rubric, 
nor  in  any  other  formulary  of  the  Church  of  England, 
is  any  decision  given  as  to  the  state  of  infants  dying 
without  Baptism.  Bishop  Bethell  says  {Regeneration 
in  Baptism,  p.  xiv.]  that  the  common  opinion  of  the 
ancient  Christians  was,  that  they  are  not  saved  :  and 
as  our  Lord  has  given  us  such  plain  words  in  John  iii. 
5,  this  seems  a  reasonable  opinion.  But  this  opinion 
does  not  involve  any  cruel  idea  of  pain  or  suffering  for 
little  ones  so  deprived  of  the  Sacrament  of  new  birth 
by  no  fault  of  their  own.  It  rather  supposes  them  to 
be  as  if  they  had  never  been,  when  they  might,  through 
the  care  and  love  of  their  parents,  have  been  reckoned 
among  the  number  of  those  '  in  whom  is  no  guile,'  and 
'who  follow  the  Lamb  whithersoever  He  goeth.'  "  ' 
This  position  has  indeed  the  best  right  to  be  called  the 
historical  understanding  of  the  Church  of  England  as 
to  the  teaching  of  her  Prayer  Book,  as  we  may  be  ad- 
vised by  the  statement  of  it  by  the  great  historian  of 
infant  baptism,  William  Wall,  writing  indeed  two  hun- 
dred years  ago,  but  putting  into  his  carefully  chosen 
and  sober  language  just  what,  as  we  have  seen,  the  best 
accredited  expounders  of  the  Prayer  Book  in  our  own 
day  repeat.  "  The  Church  of  England,"  says  Wall,2 
"  have  declared  their  sense  of  its  [i.e  baptism's]  neces- 
sity by  reciting  the  saying  of  our  Saviour,  John  iii.  5, 
both  in  the  Office  of  Baptism  of  Infants  and  also  in  that 
for  those  of  riper  years.  .  .  .  Concerning  the  ever- 
lasting state  of  an  infant  that  by  misfortune  dies  un- 
baptized,  the  Church  of  England  has  determined  noth- 
ing (it  were  fit  that  all  churches  would  leave  such 
things  to  God)  save  that  they  forbid  the  ordinary 
Office  for  Burial  to  be  used  for  such  an  one  ;  for  that 
were  to  determine  the  point  and  acknowledge  him  for 
a  Christian  brother.     And  though  the  most  noted  men 

1  The  Annotated  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  etc.,  edited  by  the 
Rev.  John  Henry  Blunt,  M.A.,  F.S.A.,  etc.  (London,  1866),  ii.,  230. 

2  Hist,  of  Infant  Baptism,  ed.  2,  1707,  p.  377. 


THE   ANGLICAN  POSITION.  187 

in  the  said  Church  from  time  to  time  since  the  Refor- 
mation of  it  to  this  time  have  expressed  their  hopes 
that  God  will  accept  the  purpose  of  the  parent  for  the 
deed  ;  yet  they  have  done  it  modestly  and  much  as 
Wycliffe  did,  rather  not  determining  the  negative  than 
absolutely  determining  the  positive,  that  such  a  child 
shall  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 

The  Church  of  England  holds  thus  the  unenviable 
place  among  Protestant  churches  of  alone  of  them  hav- 
ing no  word  of  cheer  to  say  as  to  the  destiny  of  the 
children  of  Christian  parents  who  depart  from  this 
world  without  baptism.  There  is  no  covenant  with 
reference  to  them  ;  it  may  be  that  they  may  be  saved 
— but  if  so,  she  is  sure  she  cannot  tell  how  ;  or  if  they 
be  not  saved,  it  may  be  that  they  shall  be  "as  if  they 
had  never  been  :"  there  is  no  word  of  God  with  refer- 
ence to  them.  Surely  this  is  all  cold  comfort  enough. 
And  if  this  is  all  that  can  be  said  of  the  children  of  the 
faithful,  lacking  baptism,  where  will  those  of  the  infidel 
appear  ? 

The  hope  which  the  formularies  of  the  Church  of 
England  can  find  no  basis  for  in  the  Word  of  God,  and 
which  those  whose  views  of  Divine  truth  are  moulded 
by  these  formularies  must  deny  or  at  least  withhold, 
has  nevertheless,  as  Wall  tells  us,  been  "  from  time 
to  time  since  the  Reformation"  freely  expressed  by 
individual  teachers  in  that  Church,  and  that  especially, 
as  he  adds,  by  "  the  most  noted  men"  in  it.  Those  to 
whose  labors  and  sufferings  the  Church  of  England 
owed  her  very  existence  were  in  no  respect  behind 
their  successors  in  this.  We  have  seen  that  the  Refor- 
mation of  the  Ecclesiastical  Laws,  drawn  up  by  a  com- 
mission with  Cranmer  at  its  head,  affirmed,  of  the  opin- 
ion that  no  infant  dying  without  baptism  could  be  saved 
— which  Cranmer  and  his  coadjutors  had  themselves  in- 
corporated into  the  earliest  formularies— that  it  was  a 
"  scrupulous  superstition"  and  far  different  from  the 
opinion  of  the  Church  of  England.1  Obviously  "  in  the 

1  See  above,  foot-note  on  p.  174. 


1 88         THE  DOCTRINE    OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

meantime,"  as  Dr.  Schaff  suggests,  Cranmer  "  had 
changed  his  opinion."1  What  was  the  current  convic- 
tion on  this  subject  among  the  leading  reformers  we  may 
learn,  as  well  as  from  another,  from  one  of  Cranmer's 
chaplains,  Thomas  Becon,  who  chances  to  have  written 
repeatedly  and  at  length  upon  it. 

In  the  second  part  of  his  treatise  on  The  Demands 
of  Holy  Scripttire,  the  preface  to  which  is  dated  on 
the  first  of  September,  1563,  Becon  raises  the  ques- 
tion, "  What  if  the  infants  die  before  they  receive 
the  sacrament  of  baptism  ?"  and  answers  it  succinctly 
as  follows:  "  God's  promise  of  salvation  unto  them 
is  not  for  default  of  the  sacrament  minished,  or  made 
vain  and  of  no  effect.  For  the  Spirit  is  not  so  bound 
to  the  water  that  it  cannot  work  his  office  when 
the  water  wanteth,  or  that  it  of  necessity  must 
always  be  there  where  the  water  is  sprinkled. 
Simon  Magus  had  the  sacramental  water,  but  he  had 
not  the  Holy  Ghost,  being  indeed  an  hypocrite  and 
filthy  dissembler.  In  the  chronicle  of  the  apostles' 
Acts  we  read  that,  while  Peter  preached,  the  Holy 
Ghost  came  upon  them  that  heard  him,  yea,  and  that 
before  they  were  baptized  ;  by  the  reason  whereof 
Peter  brast  out  into  these  words,  and  said  :  '  Can  any 
man  forbid  water,  that  these  should  not  be  baptized, 
which  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we  ? ' 
True  Christians,  whether  they  be  old  or  young,  are 
not  saved  because  outwardly  they  be  washed  with  the 
sacramental  water,  but  because  they  be  God's  children 
by  election  through  Christ,  yea,  and  that  before  the 
foundations  of  the  world  were  laid,  and  are  sealed  up 
by  the  Spirit  of  God  unto  everlasting  life."2 

In  the  voluminous  Catechism,  which  he  wrote  some- 
what earlier  (1560)  for  the  instruction  of  his  children 
and  presents  to  them  in  a  touching  and  beautiful  preface, 
he  develops  his  views  on  this  matter  at  great  length. 
"  The  infants  of  the  heathen  and  unbelieving,"  "  for- 

.    '  Creeds  of  Christendom,  i.,  p.  642. 

2  Prayers  and  Other  Pieces  by  Thomas  Becon,  S.  T.P.,  edited  for 
the  Parker  Society  by  the  Rev.  John  Ayre,  M.A.  (Cambridge,  1844), 
p.  617. 


THE  ANGLICAN  POSITION.  189 

asmuch  as  they  belong  not  unto  the  household  of 
faith,  neither  are  contained  in  this  covenant,  '  1  will 
be  thy  God,  and  the  God  of  thy  seed  ;  '  again,  '  I 
will  pour  out  my  Spirit  upon  thy  seed,  and  my 
blessing  upon  thy  buds,'  "  he  leaves  "to  the  judg- 
ment of  God,  to  whom  they  either  stand  or  fall." 
But  "  with  the  children  of  the  faithful  God  hath 
made  a  sure  and  an  everlasting  covenant,  that  he 
will  be  their  God  and  Saviour,  yea,  their  most 
loving  Father,  and  take  them  for  his  sons  and  heirs, 
as  St.  Peter  saith,  '  The  promise  was  made  to  you 
and  to  your  children.'  "  He  knows  well  "  how 
hard  and  rigorous  divers  fathers  of  Christ's  church 
are  to  such  infants  as  die  without  baptism,"  but  he 
judges  this  opinion  of  theirs  to  be  injurious  to  the 
grace  of  God  and  dissenting  from  the  verity  of  God's 
Word.  Injurious  to  the  grace  of  God,  because  "  the 
Holy  scripture  in  every  place  attributeth  our  salvation 
to  the  free  grace  of  God,  and  not  either  to  our  own 
works,  or  to  any  outward  sign  or  sacrament."  ' '  Hath 
God  so  bound  himself  and  made  himself  thrall  to  a 
sacrament,  that  without  it  his  power  of  saving  is  lame, 
and  of  no  force  to  defend  from  damnation  ?"  Baptism 
is  to  Christians  what  circumcision  was  to  the  Jews,  not 
a  thing  that  makes  righteous,  but  "  '  a  seal  of  right- 
eousness,' and  a  sign  of  God's  favor  toward  us,"  and 
so  "  the  outward  baptism,  which  is  done  by  water, 
neither  giveth  the  Holy  Ghost,  nor  the  grace  of  God, 
but  only  is  a  sign  and  token  thereof,"  and  therefore, 
"  if  any  of  the  Christian  infants,  prevented  by  death, 
depart  without  baptism  (necessity  so  compelling),  they 
are  not  damned,  but  be  saved  by  the  free  grace  of 
God  ;  forasmuch,  as  we  tofore  heard,  they  be  contained 
in  the  covenant  of  grace,  they  be  members  of  God's 
church,  God  promiseth  to  be  their  God,  they  have 
faith,  and  be  endued  with  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  so 
finally  '  sons  and  heirs  of  God,  and  heirs  annexed  with 
Christ  Jesu.'  '  His  firm  conviction  from  Scripture 
is  ' '  that  the  grace  and  Spirit  of  God  cometh  where  and 
when  it  pleaseth  God,  yea,  and  that  they  be  not  bound 
to  any  external  ceremony,  as  to  be  present  and  to  be 


190         THE  DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

given  when  the  sacraments  are  ministered,  and  other- 
wise not,  so  that  the  Spirit  and  grace  of  God  must 
wait  and  attend  upon  these  outward  signs,  as  servants 
do  attend  and  wait  upon  their  lords  and  masters" — 
"  which  is  nothing  else,"  he  declares,  "  than  to  bring 
God  into  bondage  to  his  creatures,  and  to  make  him  not 
master  of  his  own."  "  They,  therefore,"  he  concludes, 
"  that  teach  and  hold  this  doctrine  are  not  only  ene- 
mies to  the  salvation  of  the  infants,  but  they  also  utterly 
obscure,  yea,  and  quench  the  grace  and  election  of 
God  and  the  secret  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the 
tender  breasts  of  the  most  tender  infants,  and  attribute 
to  an  external  sign  more  than  right  is."1  In  a  word, 
Thomas  Becon  plants  himself  squarely  on  that  "  cove- 
nanted mercy  of  Almighty  God,"  which  Mr.  Procter 
tells  us  the  framers  of  the  Prayer  Book  failed  to  dis- 
cover for  those  who  die  unbaptized  ;  and  finds  no  diffi- 
culty in  showing  from  Scripture  that  it  underlies  bap- 
tism which  is  its  seal,  and  does  not  rather  wait  on  bap- 
tism as  its  cause. 

Such  an  instance  as  that  of  John  Hooper  is,  of  course, 
even  more  striking.  He  had  come  under  distinctly 
Zwinglian  influences,  and,  like  Zwingli  and  possibly 
first  after  Zwingli,  taught  the  salvation  not  only  of  the 
infants  of  Christians  dying  unbaptized,  but  also  of  all 
infants  dying  such,  whether  the  children  of  Christians 
or  of  infidels.  As  to  baptismal  regeneration,  he  speaks 
of  "  the  ungodly  opinion,  that  attributeth  the  salvation 
of  man  unto  the  receiving  of  an  external  sacrament," 
"  as  though  God's  holy  Spirit  could  not  be  carried  by 
faith  into  the  penitent  and  sorrowful  conscience  except 
it  rid  always  in  a  chariot  and  external  sacrament." 
With  reference  to  the  salvation  of  unbaptized  infants, 
therefore,  he  says  :  "  It  is  ill  done  to  condemn  the  in- 
fants of  the  Christians  that  die  without  baptism,  of 
whose  salvation  by  the  Scripture  we  be  assured  :  Ero 
Dens  tuus,  et  seminis  tuis post  te.  I  would  likewise  judge 
well,"  he  adds,  "  of  the  infants  of  the  infidels  who  hath 

1  The  Catechism  of  Thomas  Becon,  S  T.P.,  etc.,  edited  for  the 
Parker  Society  by  the  Rev.  John  Ayre,  M.A.  (Cambridge,  1844),  pp. 
214-225. 


THE  ANGLICAN  POSITION.  19 1 

none  other  sin  in  them  but  original,  the  sin  of  Adam's 
transgression.  And  as  by  Adam  sin  and  death  entered 
into  the  world,  so  by  Christ  justice  and  life.  Ut  quem- 
admodum  regnaverat  peccatum  in  morte,  sic  et  gratia  reg~ 
naret  per  justiciam  ad  vitam  aternam per  Jesum  Christum. 
Rom.  v.  Whereas  the  infants  doth  not  follow  the 
iniquity  of  the  father,  but  only  culpable  for  the  trans- 
gression of  Adam,  it  shall  not  be  against  the  faith  of  a 
Christian  man  to  say,  that  Christ's  death  and  passion 
extendeth  as  far  for  the  salvation  of  innocents,  as 
Adam's  fall  made  all  his  posterity  culpable  of  damna- 
tion. Quia  quemadmodum  per  inobedientiam  unius  hominis 
peccatores  constituti  fecimus  multi,  ita  per  obedientiam 
unius  justi  constituentur  multi.  The  Scripture  also  pre- 
ferreth  the  grace  of  God's  promise  to  be  more  abun- 
dant than  sin.  Ubi  exuberavit  peccatum,  ubi  magis  exu- 
beravit  gratia.  Rom.  v.  It  is  not  the  part  of  a  Chris- 
tian to  say,  this  man  is  damned,  or  this  is  saved,  except 
he  see  the  cause  of  damnation  manifest.  As  touching 
the  promises  of  God's  election,  sunt  sine pcenitentia  dona 
et  vocatio  Dei."1 

Naturally  many  other  opinions  have  found  expres- 
sion in  the  bosom  of  this  most  inclusive  communion. 
In  the  vexed  time  of  the  seventeenth  century,  for  ex- 
ample, men  like  William  Perkins2  and  James  Usher3  ap- 
proached the  question  from  the  side  of  the  Reformed 


1  An  Answer  unto  My  Lord  of  Winchester '  s  Booke,  etc.,  1547,  in 
the  Parker  Society's  Early   Writings  of  Bishop  Hooper,  pp.   129, 

131. 

*  "  Reprobates  are  either  infants  or  men  of  riper  age.  In  repro- 
bate infants  the  execution  of  God's  decree  is  this  :  As  soon  as  they 
are  born,  for  the  guilt  of  original  and  natural  sin,  being  left  in  God's 
secret  judgment  unto  themselves,  they  dying  are  rejected  of  God 
forever"  (The  Golden  Chain,  ch.  53,  in  Works,  ed.  1608,  i.,  p.  107). 
"  We  are  to  judge  that  Infants  of  believing  parents  in  their  infancy 
dying,  are  justified"  (How  to  Live  Well,  i.,  486). 

3  "  Some  Reprobates  dying  Infants  .  .  .  Being  once  conceived  they 
are  in  a  state  of  Death  (Rom.  5.  14),  by  reason  of  the  sin  of  Adam 
imputed,  and  of  original  corruption  cleaving  to  their  Nature,  wherein 
also,  dying  they  perish  :  As  (for  instance)  the  Children  of  Heathen 
Parents.  For  touching  the  Children  of  Christians,  we  are  taught  and 
account  them  holy.  1  Cor.  7.  14"  (Body  of  Divinity,  4to  ed.,  1702, 
P-  165). 


192         THE  DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

theology  ;  others,  like  Jeremy  Taylor,1  from  a  funda- 
mentally Pelagianizing  standpoint  ;  others,  like  Mat- 
thew Scrivener,3  from  a  "  churchly"  one.  From  a 
somewhat  earlier  period,  the  argument  of  Richard 
Hooker  may  be  taken  as  fairly  representing  the  more 
considerate  churchmanship  of  the  time.  Holding 
to  the  necessity  of  baptism,  not  indeed  as  "a  cause 
of  grace,"  but  as  "  an  instrument  or  means  whereby 
we  receive  grace,"  ordained  as  such  by  Christ,  he 
argues  that  "  if  Christ  himself  which  giveth  salvation 
do  require  Baptism  ;  it  is  not  for  us  that  look  for  sal- 
vation to  sound  and  examine  him,  whether  unbaptized 
men  may  be  saved  ;  but  seriously  to  do  that  which  is 
required,  and  religiously  to  fear  the  danger  that  may 
grow  by  the  want  thereof."  Nevertheless  he  remarks 
that  the  "  Law  of  Christ,  which  in  these  considerations 
maketh  Baptism  necessary,  must  be  construed  and 
understood  according  to  rules  of  natural  equity  ;" 
"and  (because  equity  so  teacheth)  it  is  on  our  part 
gladly  confessed,  that  there  may  be  in  divers  cases  life 
by  virtue  of  inward  Baptism,  even  when  outward  is 
not  found."  Whether  this  principle  may  be  extended 
to  infants  dying  unbaptized,  he  makes  the  subject  of 
special  consideration.  Inasmuch  as  "  grace  is  not  ab- 
solutely tied  unto  Sacraments  ;"  and  God  accepts  the 
will  for  the  deed  in  cases  where  the  deed  is  impossible  ; 
and  there  is  a  presumed  desire  and  even  purpose  in 
Christian  parents  and  the  Church  to  give  these  chil- 
dren baptism  ;  and  their  birth  of  Christian  parents 
marks  them,  according  to  Scripture,  as  holy,  and  gives 
them  "  a  present  interest  and  right  to  those  means 
wherewith  the  ordinance  of  Christ  is  that  his  Church 
shall  be  sanctified  :"  "it  is  not  to  be  thought  that  he 

1  The  Whole  Works  of,  etc.  (London,  1828),  vol.  ii.,  p.  258  sq., 
289  sq.;  vol.  viii.,  150  sq.  ;  vol.  ix.,  p.  12  sq.,  90  sq.,  369  sq. 

2  "  Either  all  children  must  be  damned,  dying  unbaptized,  or  they 
must  have  baptism.  .  .  .  The  principle  in  Christian  religion  is,  That 
children  come  into  the  world  infected  with  original  sin  ;  and  there- 
fore, if  there  be  no  remedy  against  that,  provided  by  God,  all  children 
of  Christian  parents,  which  St.  Paul  says  are  holy,  are  liable  to  eter- 
nal death  without  remedy.  Now,  there  is  no  remedy  but  Christ  ; 
and  his  death  and  passion  are  not  communicated  to  any  but  by  out- 
ward signs  and  sacraments.  And  no  other  do  we  read  of  but  that  of 
water  in  baptism"  (Course  of  Divinity,  London,  1674,  p.  196). 


THE  ANGLICAN  POSITION.  193 

which,  as  it  were,  from  Heaven,  hath  nominated  and 
designed  them  unto  holiness  by  special  privilege  of 
their  very  birth,  will  himself  deprive  them  of  regen- 
eration and  inward  grace,  only  because  necessity  de- 
priveth  them  of  outward  sacraments."1 

It  would  seem  that  on  grounds  such  as  these,  even  the 
highest  churchmanship  might  find  it  possible  to  assert 
the  certain  salvation  of  all  the  children  of  Christians,  at 
least,  which  die  unbaptized  ;  and,  as  has  been  pointed 
out  on  an  earlier  page,5  the  considerations  thus  so 
judiciously  set  forth  would  even  appear  to  open  a  way 
for  the  development,  on  churchly  grounds,  of  a  bap- 
tism of  intention  as  applied  to  infants,  which  could  be 
extended,  without  danger  to  any  important  interest, 
to  embrace  all  infants  that  die  in  infancy.  Neverthe- 
less it  has  not  been  on  the  part  of  high-churchmen 
that,  in  the  Church  of  England,  the  salvation  of  infants 
dying  such  has  been  affirmed.  This  has  rather  been 
the  part  of  low-churchmen,  like  John  Newton3  and 
Thomas  Scott4  and  Augustus  Toplady,6  while  high- 

1  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  Book  V.,  §  60.  (Dobson's  ed  ,  i.,  600-607  ; 
Keble's  ed.  ii.,  341-347.) 

2  See  above,  p.  156. 

3  Works,  IV.,  182  :  "  I  cannot  be  sorry  for  the  death  of  infants. 
How  many  storms  do  they  escape  !  Nor  can  I  doubt,  in  my  private 
judgment,  that  they  are  included  in  the  election  of  grace.  Perhaps 
those  who  die  in  infancy  are  the  exceeding  great  multitude  of  all 
people,  nations,  and  languages  mentioned  (Rev.  7  :  9)  in  distinction 
from  the  visible  body  of  professing  believers,  who  were  marked  on 
their  foreheads  and  openly  known  to.be  the  Lord's." 

4  The  Articles  of  the  Synod  of  Dort,  etc.  (Philadelphia,  1818, 
p.  189) :  "  The  salvation  of  the  offspring  of  believers  dying  in  infancy 
is  here  scripturally  stated,  and  not  limited  to  such  as  are  baptized. 
Nothing  is  said  of  the  children  of  unbelievers  dying  in  infancy,  and 
the  Scripture  says  nothing.  But  why  might  not  these  Calvinists  have 
as  favorable  a  hope  of  all  infants  dying  before  actual  sin  as  anti-Cal- 
vinists  can  have?" 

5  The  Works  of,  etc.  (new  ed.,  London,  1837,  pp.  645,  646)  :  "  But 
you  observe  .  .  .  that  '  With  regard  to  infants,  the  rubrick  declares 
it  is  certain  by  God's  word  that  children  which  are  baptized,  dying 
before  they  commit  actual  sin,  are  undoubtedly  saved.'  I  firmly 
believe  the  same  ;  nay,  I  believe  more.  I  am  convinced  that  the 
souls  of  all  departed  infants  whatever,  whether  baptized  or  unbap- 
tized, are  with  God  in  glory.  ...  I  believe  that  in  the  decree  of 
predestination  to  life,  God  hath  included  all  whom  he  hath  decreed 
to  take  away  in  infancy  ;  and  that  the  decree  of  reprobation  has 
nothing  to  do  with  them."     So,  again,  p.  142,  note  m  :  "  No  objection 


194         THE  DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

churchmen  have  ever  shown  a  tendency  to  doubt  or 
deny  the  salvation  of  those  who  die  without  haying 
been  "  admitted  into  covenant  with  God"  by  baptism. 
This  is  the  language  of  Tract  No.  351  (written  by  A.  C. 
Percival)  of  the  Oxford  Tracts  for  the  Times,  within 
which  were  included  also  Dr.  Pusey's  voluminous 
treatises  on  baptismal  regeneration.  These  treatises 
have  not  failed  of  their  effect,  and  possibly  at  no  time 
before  the  present  in  the  whole  history  of  the  Church 
of  England  since  the  first  years  of  its  reformation,  has 
there  ever  been  a  more  widespread  tendency  to  stand 
simply  upon  the  wording  of  the  rubric  at  the  end  of 
the  Baptismal  Service,  as  if  it  included  all  ascertainable 
truth,  and  to  affirm  only  the  certainty  of  the  salvation 
of  those  infants  dying  in  infancy  which  have  been  bap- 
tized. All  others,  though  they  be  the  children  of 
God's  recognized  children,  are,  sometimes  with  a  cer- 
tainly not  very  easily  understood  complacency,  at  the 
best  committed  to  the  "  uncovenanted  mercies  of 
God,"8  at  the  worst  consigned  to  a  place  among  those 

can  hence  arise  against  the  salvation  of  such  as  die  in  infancy  (all  of 
whom  are  undoubtedly  saved)  ;  nor  yet  against  the  salvation  of  God's 
elect  among  the  Heathens,  Mohametans,  and  others.  The  Holy 
Spirit  is  able  to  inspire  the  grace  of  actual  faith  into  those  hearts 
(especially  at  the  moment  of  dissolution)  which  are  incapable  of  ex- 
erting the  explicit  act  of  faith." 

1  "  The  Sacrament  of  Baptism,  by  which  souls  are  admitted  into 
covenant  with  God,  and  without  which  none  can  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  (John  3  :  5)"  {Tract  No.  jj,  p.  1).  Cf.  the  words  of 
Tract  No.  67  which  affirms  that  the  relationship  of  sonship  to  God 
is  imparted  through  baptism,  and  is  not  imparted  without  it. 

8  Efforts  to  assign  salvation  to  them  on  the  "  uncovenanted  mercies 
of  God,"  proceed  ordinarily  either  upon  a  Romish  conception  of 
"  ignorance,"  or  upon  the  conjecture  of  a  proclamation  of  the  Gospel 
to  them  in  the  intermediate  state.  Thus  a  recent  writer  declares  that 
"  those  souls  who  have,  until  this  season,  been  ignorant  of  their  God, 
or  seen  Him,  at  the  best,.but  dimly,  through  their  heathen  faiths,  and 
yet,  despite  of  this,  have  "followed  and  obeyed,  as  best  they  could,  His 
guidings  and  '  enlightenings  '  of  their  minds— those  souls,  I  say,  will 
doubtless,  in  that  '  Vision  '  at  last  receive  the  Full  Light,  hear  His 
Gospel,  and  know  Him  as  their  Lord."  Then  he  adds  in  a  note  : 
"  In  this  category,  also,  evidently  belong  unbaptized  infants"  (Alan  S. 
Hawkesworth,  De  Incarnatione  Verbi  Dei,  p.  64).  Why  "unbap- 
tized infants,"  even  of  believers,  "  evidently"  belong  in  the  category 
of  the  heathen,  we  are  not  told  ;  nor  why,  if  they  are  so  classed  by 
God,  they  should  belong  in  the  category  of  those  heathen  who  "  have 
followed  and  obeyed,  as  best  they  could  ;"  nor  what  reason  we  have  to 


THE  REFORMED  DOCTRINE.  1 95 

who  know  not  God  and  obey  not  the  Gospel  of  our 
Lord  Jesus. 

The  Reformed  Doctrine. 

It  was  among  the  Reformed  alone  that  the  newly 
recovered  scriptural  apprehension  of  the  Church  to 
which  the  promises  were  given,  as  essentially  not  an 
external  organization  but  the  true  Body  of  Christ, 
membership  in  which  is  mediated  not  by  the  external 
act  of  baptism  but  by  the  internal  regeneration  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  bore  its  full  fruit  in  rectifying  the  doc- 
trine of  the  application  ol  redemption.  This  great 
truth  was  taught  alike,  to  be  sure,  by  both  branches  of 
Protestantism,  Lutheran  as  well  as  Reformed.  But  it 
was  limited  in  its  application  in  the  one  line  of  teach- 
ing by  a  very  high  doctrine  of  the  means  of  grace  ; 
while  in  the  other,  wherever  the  purity  of  the  Re- 
formed doctrine  was  not  corrupted  by  a  large  infusion 
of  Romish  inheritance,  it  became  itself  constitutive  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  means  of  grace.  There  were  some 
Reformed  theologians,  even  outside  the  Church  of 
England,  no  doubt,  who  held  a  high  doctrine  of  the 
means.  Of  these  Peter  Jurieu  (1637-1713)  may  be 
taken  as  a  type.'  This  famous  writer,  to  whom  Wit- 
sius  somewhat  rashly  promised  the  grateful  veneration 
of  posterity,  taught  that  even  elect  infants,  children  of 
covenanted  parents,  are  children  of  wrath  until  they 
are  baptized,  and  up  to  that  time  have  not  received 
their  complete  reconciliation,  nor  have  been  washed 
from  the  stains  with  which  they  are  born,  nor  are  the 
objects  of  God's  love  of  complacency  ;  that  baptism  is 
as  necessary  to  salvation  as  eating  is  to  living  or  taking 
the  remedy  is  to  recovery  from  disease  ;  that  therefore 
infants  properly  baptized  and  dying  in  infancy  are  cer- 
tainly saved,  and  their  baptism  is  an  indubitable  proof 
of  their  election,  while  of  the  salvation  of  those  who 
die  before  baptism  we  can  have  no  certainty,  but  only  a 

think  that  all  of  either  these  or  those  will  receive  the  Gospel  when  it 
is  offered  them. 

1  See  his  views  quoted  and  discussed  by  Witsius,  De  Efficace  et 
Militate  Bapt.  in  Miscel.  Sacra  (1736),  ii.,  513. 


196  THE  DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

judgment  of  charity  ;  that  God  no  doubt  does  save 
some  infants  without  baptism,  but  this  is  done  in  an 
extraordinary,  and,  so  to  speak,  miraculous  way,  and 
so  that  the  death  of  the  infant  may  be  supposed  to  sup- 
ply the  defect  of  baptism,  as  martyrdom  does  for  adults 
in  the  Romish  teaching.  Such  opinions,  however, 
were  not  characteristic  of  the  Reformed  churches,  the 
distinguishing  doctrine  of  which,  rather,  by  suspend- 
ing salvation  on  membership  in  the  invisible  instead 
of  in  the  visible  Church,  transformed  baptism  from  a 
necessity  into  a  duty,  and  left  men  dependent  for  sal- 
vation on  nothing  but  the  infinite  love  and  free  grace 
of  God. 

From  this  point  of  view  the  absolutely  free  and  lov- 
ing election  of  God  alone  is  determinative  of  the  saved. 
How  many  are  saved,  and  who  they  are,  can  therefore 
be  known  absolutely  to  God  alone  ;  to  us,  only  so  far 
forth  as  may  be  inferred  from  the  presence  of  the  marks 
and  signs  of  election  revealed  to  us  in  the  Word.  Faith 
and  its  fruits  are  the  chief  signs  in  the  case  of  adults  ; 
and  accordingly  he  that  believes  may  know  that  he  is 
of  the  elect  and  be  certain  of  his  salvation.  In  the  case 
of  infants  dying  in  infancy,  birth  within  the  bounds  of 
the  covenant  is  a  sure  sign,  since  the  promise  is  ' '  unto 
us  and  our  children."  But  present  unbelief  is  not  a 
sure  sign  of  reprobation  in  the  case  of  adults  ;  for  who 
knows  but  that  unbelief  may  yet  give  place  to  faith  ? 
Nor  in  the  case  of  infants,  dying  such,  is  birth  outside 
the  covenant  a  trustworthy  sign  of  reprobation  ;  for 
the  election  of  God  is  free.  Accordingly  there  are 
many — adults  and  infants — of  whose  salvation  we  may 
be  sure  :  but  Of  reprobation  we  can  never  be  sure  ;  a 
judgment  to  that  effect  is  necessarily  unsafe  even  as  to 
such  adults  as  are  apparently  living  in  sin,  while  as  to 
infants  who  "  dieand  give  no  sign, "it  is  presumptuous 
and  rash  in  the  extreme.  The  above  is  practically  an 
outline  of  the  teaching  of  Zwingli.1     He  himself,  after 

1  Zwingli's  teaching  may  be  conveniently  worked  out  by  the  aid  of 
August  Baur's  valuable  Zwingli's  Theologie,  especially  vol.  ii. 
(Halle,  1889).  Zwingli's  peculiar  doctrine  of  original  sin  had  practi- 
cally very  little  influence  on  his  resolution  of  the  question  of  the  sal- 


THE  REFORMED   DOCTRINE.  1 97 

some  preliminary  hesitation,1  worked  it  out  in  its  logi- 
cal completeness,  and  taught  that  :  I.  All  believers 
are  elect  and  hence  are  saved  ;  though  we  cannot  know 
infallibly  who  are  true  believers,  except  each  man  in 
his  own  case."  2.  All  children  of  believers  dying  in 
infancy  are  elect,  and  hence  are  saved  ;  their  inclusion 
in  the  covenant  of  salvation  rests  on  God's  immutable 
promise,  and  their  death  in  infancy  must  be  taken  as  a 
sign  of  election.3     3.   It  is  probable,  from  the  super- 

vation  of  infants,  which  rather  turned  on  his  doctrine  of  the  extent 
of  the  atonement. 

1  Works,  i.,  423  (1523). 

2  The  word  "church,"  says  Zwingli,  "is  used  variously  in  the 
Scriptures.  First  of  all,  it  is  used  for  those  elect  who  are  destinated 
by  the  will  of  God  to  eternal  life.  .  .  .  This  is  known  to  God  alone,  for 
He,  according  to  the  word  of  Solomon,  alone  knows  the  hearts  of  the 
sons  of  men.  But  none  the  less,  those  who  are  members  of  this 
church  know  that  they  themselves,  since  they  have  faith,  are  elect 
and  are  members  of  this  first  church  ;  but  they  are  ignorant  of  other 
members  than  themselves.  .  .  .  Those  then  who  believe  are  ordained 
to  eternal  life.  But  who  truly  believe  no  one  knows  except  the  believer 
himself.  .  .  .  From  these,  therefore,  it  follows  that  that  first  church 
is  known  to  God  alone,  and  only  those  who  have  certain  and  unshaken 
faith  know  that  they  are  members  of  this  church."  (  Works,  iv., 
p.  8.)  "  It  follows,  therefore,  that  those  who  believe  know  they  are 
elect  ;  for  those  who  believe  are  elect.  Election  is,  therefore,  the 
antecedent  of  faith.  ...  It  is  proper  to  pronounce  concerning  those 
only  who  persist  in  disbelief  until  death.  However  much  any  give 
open  signs,  whether  by  cruelty  or  lust,  that  they  are  repudiated  by 
God,  nevertheless  we  ought  not  before  the  end  or  '  departure  '  (as  the 
poet  says)  to  condemn  any  one."     (  Works,  iv.,  723  sq.,  1530.) 

3  "  We  are  more  certain  of  the  election  of  none  than  of  infants  who 
are  taken  away  in  youth,  while  as  yet  they  are  without  law  ;  for 
human  life  is  sometimes  not  truly,  but  only  apparently  innocent, 
while  there  cannot  be  any  stain  {tabes)  in  infants  who  spring  from 
believers.  For  original  sin  is  expiated  by  Christ  ;  for  as  in  Adam  all 
died,  so  in  Christ  we  are  all  restored  to  life— we,  that  is,  who  either 
believe  or  are  of  the  church  by  promise.  But  no  stain  of  misdeeds 
(labes  facinorum)  can  contaminate  them,  for  they  are  not  yet  under 
law.  But  since  no  cause  disjoins  them  from  God  except  sin,  and  they 
are  alien  from  all  sin,  it  follows  that  none  can  so  irrefragably  be 
known  to  be  among  the  elect  as  those  infants  who  are  taken  away  by 
fate  in  youth  ;  for  in  their  case  to  die  is  the  sign  of  election,  just  as 
faith  is  in  adults.  And  those  who  are  reprobated  or  repudiated  by 
God  do  not  die  in  this  state  of  innocence,  but  are  preserved  by  Divine 
providence,  that  their  repudiation  may  be  manifested  by  a  wicked 
life."  {Works,  iv.,  127,  1530.)  "Therefore  the  infants  of  Chris- 
tians, since  they  are  not  less  than  adults  of  the  visible  Church  of 
Christ,  are  not  less  to  be  (so  it  follows)  in  the  number  of  those  whom 


198  THE  DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

abundance  of  the  gift  of  grace  over  the  offence,  that 
all  infants  dying  such  are  elect  and  saved  ;  there  is, 
indeed,  no  sure  promise  of  their  salvation,  which  must, 
therefore,  be  left  with  God,  but  it  is  certainly  rash  and 
even  impious  to  affirm  their  damnation.1  4.  All  who 
are  saved,  whether  adult  or  infant,  are  saved  only  by 
the  free  grace  of  God's  election  and  through  the  re- 
demption of  Christ.2 

we  judge  to  be  elect  than  their  parents.  Hence  it  happens  that  those 
judges  act  impiously  and  presumptuously  who  devote  the  infants  of 
Christians  to  dreadful  things,  since  so  many  clear  testimonies  of 
Scripture  contradict  this  .  .  ."     (  Works,  iv.,  8.) 

1  "  Since  those  alone  who  have  heard  and  then  either  believed  or 
remained  in  unbelief  are  subject  to  our  judgment,  it  follows  that  we 
vehemently  err  in  judging  infant  children,  whether  of  Gentries  or  of 
Christians.  Of  Gentiles,  because  no  law  condemns  them,  for  they  do 
not  fall  under  that  of  '  Who  shall  not  believe,'  etc.  Hence,  since  the 
election  of  God  is  free,  it  is  impious  to  exclude  from  it  those  of  whom 
by  these  signs,  faith  and  unbelief,  we  are  not  able  to  determine 
whether  they  are  in  it  or  not.  With  reference  to  those  of  Christians, 
however,  we  are  not  only  intruding  rashly  into  the  election  of  God, 
but  we  are  not  even  believing  His  word  by  which  He  manifests  this 
election  to  us.  For  since  He  admits  us  into  the  covenant  of  Abraham, 
this  word  now  renders  us  no  less  certain  of  their  election  than  former- 
ly of  the  Hebrews.  For  that  word,  that  they  are  within  the  covenant, 
testament,  people  of  God,  makes  us  certain  of  their  election  until 
God  shall  announce  something  else  concerning  any  one."  {Works, 
iii.,  427,  cf.  429.  1527.)  "  Hence  it  follows  that  if  in  Christ,  the  second 
Adam,  we  are  restored  to  life,  just  as  we  were  handed  over  to  death 
in  the  first  Adam,  we  rashly  condemn  the  children  born  of  Christian 
parents  ;  nay,  even  the  children  of  Gentiles.  But  as  to  the  infants  of 
Gentiles,  whatever  opinion  may  be  held,  we  confidently  assert  that 
on  account  of  the  virtue  of  the  pre-eminent  salvation  of  Christ,  they 
go  beyond  the  mark  who  adjudge  them  to  eternal  malediction,  both 
because  of  the  reparation  spoken  of  and  because  of  the  free  election 
of  God,  which  does  not  follow,  but  is  followed  by,  faith.  .  .  .  They 
ought  not,  therefore,  to  be  rashly  condemned  by  us  who,  by  reason 
of  age,  have  not  faith  ;  for  although  they  do  not  as  yet  have  it,  the 
election  of  God  is  nevertheless  hidden  from  us,  with  respect  to  which, 
if  they  are  elect,  we  judge  rashly  concerning  things  of  which  we 
know  nothing."     {Works,  iv.,  7.) 

2  "  But  I  have  spoken  in  this  manner,  That  the  children  of  Chris- 
tians cannot  be  damned  by  original  sin  for  this  reason,  because  though 
sin  should  condemn  according  to  the  law,  yet  on  account  of  the  remedy 
exhibited  in  Christ  it  cannot  condemn,  especially  not  those  included 
in  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham  ;  for  concerning  these  we  have 
other  clear  and  solid  testimonies  :  concerning  the  rest,  who  are  born 
out  of  the  church,  we  have  nothing  except  the  present  testimony" 
{i.e.,  "  As  in  Adam,  so  in  Christ,  but  more"),  "  so  far  as  I  know,  and 
similar  ones  in  this  fifth  chapter  of  Romans,  by  which  to  prove  that 


THE  REFORMED  DOCTRINE.  1 99 

It  is  probable  that  Zwingli  stood  alone  among  the 
Reformers  in  his  extension  of  salvation  to  all  infants 
dying  in  infancy.  That  all  children  of  believers,  dying 
in  infancy,  are  included  in  the  covenant  of  God  and 
enter  at  once  into  glory  was  the  characteristic  feature 
ot  the  Reformed  doctrine  ;  the  boldness  of  which  and 
the  relief  which  it  brought  to  the  oppressed  heart  are 
alike  scarcely  estimable  by  us  after  centuries  of  eman- 
cipation from  the  dreadful  burden  of  what  had  up  to 
the  rise  of  the  Reformed  theology  been  for  ages  the 
undoubting  belief  of  the  Church — viz.,  that  all  un- 
baptized  infants  are  excluded  from  bliss.  With  this 
great  advance  the  minds  and  hearts  of  most  men  were 
satisfied,  and,  happy  in  teaching  from  positive  Scrip- 
tures the  certain  salvation  of  all  the  children  of  Chris- 
tian parents  departing  from  their  arms  to  the  arms  of 
Jesus,  they  were  content  to  leave  the  children  of  un- 
believers, dying  such,  to  the  just  but  hidden  judgment 
of  God.  It  has  been  thought  by  many,  indeed,  that 
both  John  Calvin  and  Zwingli's  successor  in  the  leader- 
ship of  the  Church  at  Zurich,  Henry  Bullinger,  shared 
to  the  full  extent  the  hope  of  Zwingli,  and  were  ready, 
with  him,  to  extend  their  assurance  of  infant  salvation 
to  all  who  die  in  infancy  of  whatever  parentage.  It  is 
true  that  it  is  not  easy  to  adduce  from  the  writings 
of  these  great  teachers  passages  which  clearly  affirm 
the  opposite  ;  what  have  been  brought  forward  as  such 
are  usually  rather  assertions  of  the  presence  and  desert 
of  "  original  sin"  in  infants  than  declarations  of  the 
punishment  which  they  actually  undergo.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  there  is  a  more  entire  lack  of  positive  evi- 
dence for  the  affirmation  ;  and  there  are  not  altogether 

those  who  are  born  outside  the  Church  are  cleansed  from  original 
contamination.  But  if  any  one  should  say  that  it  is  more  probable 
that  the  children  of  the  Gentiles  are  saved  by  Christ  than  that  they 
are  damned,  certainly  he  is  less  making  Christ  void  than  those  who 
damn  those  born  in  the  Church,  if  they  die  without  baptism  ;  and  he 
will  have  more  foundation  and  authority  from  the  Scriptures  than 
those  who  deny  this,  for  he  would  assert  nothing  more  than  that  the 
children  of  the  Gentiles,  too,  while  of  tender  age,  are  not  damned  on 
account  of  original  vice,  but  this,  of  course,  through  the  benefit  of 
Christ."    (  Works,  637,  1526  ) 


200  THE  DOCTRINE    OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

wanting  passages  from  either  writer  which  appear,  in 
their  natural  sense,  to  imply  belief  that  some  infants 
dying  such  pass  into  doom.  It  would  seem  difficult  to 
read,  for  example,  Calvin's  rejoinders  to  Pighius,  Ser- 
vetus  and  Castellio  without  becoming  convinced  that 
he  did  not  think  of  all  infants,  dying  such,  as  escaping 
the  just  recompense  of  their  sinfulness.  Even  such  a 
comment  as  that  which  he  makes  on  Rom.  v.  7  seems, 
indeed,  to  carry  this  implication  on  its  face  :  "  Hence, 
in  order  to  partake  of  the  miserable  inheritance  of  sin, 
it  is  enough  for  thee  to  be  a  man,  for  it  dwells  in  flesh 
and  blood  ;  but  in  order  to  enjoy  the  righteousness  of 
Christ,  it  is  necessary  for  thee  to  be  a  believer,  for  a 
participation  of  Him  is  obtained  by  faith  alone.  He  is 
communicated  to  infants  in  a  peculiar  manner  ;  for 
they  have  in  the  covenant  the  right  of  adoption,  by 
which  they  pass  over  into  participation  of  Christ.  It 
is  of  the  children  of  the  pious  that  I  am  speaking,  to 
whom  the  promise  of  grace  is  directed.  For  the  rest 
are  by  no  means  released  from  the  common  lot."  ' 
Similarly  Bullinger's  language,  as  he  argues  for  the 
inclusion  of  believers'  infants  within  the  covenant  and 
their  consequent  right  to  baptism,  now  and  again  ap- 
pears inconsistent  with  the  supposition  that  he  sup- 
posed all  infants  dying  such  to  be  alike  included  in  the 
election  of  God.  Thus  a  fundamental  distinction  be- 
tween the  children  of  the  faithful  and  those  of  unbe- 
lievers, not  only  in  privileges  but  also  in  ultimate  des- 
tiny, seems  to  color  the  whole  language  of  a  passage 
like  the  following  :  "  Wherefore,  I,  trusting  to  God's 
mercy  and  his  truth  and  undoubted  promise,  believe 
that  infants,  departing  out  of  this  world  by  a  too  time- 
ly death,  before  they  can  be  baptized,  are  saved  by  the 
mere  mercy  of  God  in  the  power  of  his  truth  and 
promise  through  Christ,  who  saith  in  the  Gospel,  '  Suf- 
fer little  ones  to  come  unto  me  ;  for  of  such  is  the  king- 
dom of  God  :'  Again,  '  It  is  not  the  will  of  my  Father 
which  is  in  heaven  that  one  of  these  little  ones  should 

1  Amsterdam  ed.  of  Calvin's  Opera,  vii.,  36a  /  "  De  piorum  liberis 
loquar,  ad  quos  promissio  gratiae  dirigitur.  Nam  alii  a  communi 
forte  nequaquam  eximuntur." 


THE  REFORMED  DOCTRINE.  201 

perish.'  For  verily  God  who  cannot  lie  hath  said, 
'  I  am  thy  God,  and  the  God  of  thy  seed  after  thee.' 
Whereupon  St.  Paul  also  affirmeth  that  they  are  born 
holy  which  are  begotten  of  holy  parents  ;  not  that  of 
flesh  and  blood  any  holy  thing  is  born,  for  '  that  which 
is  born  of  flesh  is  flesh  :'  but  because  that  holiness  and 
separation  from  the  common  seed  of  men  is  of  promise, 
and  by  right  of  the  covenant.  For  we  are  all  by  natu- 
ral birth  born  the  sons  of  wrath,  death,  and  damna- 
tion :  but  Paul  attributeth  a  special  privilege  to  the 
children  ot  the  faithful,  wherewith  by  the  grace  of  God 
they  which  by  nature  are  unclean  are  purified.  So  the 
same  apostle,  in  another  place,  doth  gather  holy 
branches  of  a  holy  root  ;  and  again  elsewhere  saith  : 
'  If  by  the  sin  of  one  many  be  dead,  much  more  the 
grace  of  God  and  the  gift  of  grace  which  is  by  one 
man,  Jesus  Christ,  hath  abounded  unto  many.'  "  '  As 
over  against  the  natural  implications  of  such  passages 
there  is  nothing  positive  to  set,  and  it  is  certainly 
within  the  mark  to  say  that  as  yet  no  decisive  evidence 
has  been  adduced  to  show  that  either  Calvin a  or 
Bullinger  3  agreed  with  Zwingli  in  cherishing  the  hope 

1  Decades,  Parker  Soc.  ed.,  iv.,  373  ;  cf.  382,  313,  344. 

s  Dr.  Charles  W.  Shields,  in  a  very  thorough  and  learned  paper  in 
The  Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Review  for  October,  1890  (vol.  i.,  pp. 
634-651),  has  said  everything  possible  to  be  said  in  favor  of  including 
Calvin  in  the  class  of  those  who  teach  the  salvation  of  all  infants  dying 
such.  Dr.  Shields's  ingenious  and  powerful  argument  is  vitiated, 
however,  by  two  faults  of  interpretation.  He  does  not  always  catch 
the  drift  of  Calvin's  argument,  as  directed  rather  to  showing  against 
the  Anabaptists  that  infants,  too,  as  subjects  of  salvation,  are  also 
subjects  of  baptism  ;  and  he  refers  Calvin's  repeated  assertions  of 
the  presence  of  personal  guilt  as  distinguished  from  imputed  guilt 
in  all  those  who  are  lost,  to  guilt  arising  from  actual  sinning,  whereas 
Calvin  means  it  of  guilt  arising  from  inherent  corruption  or  "  original 
sin."  Calvin  says  that  every  soul  that  is  lost  deserves  it  not  merely 
because  it  is  implicated  in  the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin,  but  also  be- 
cause it  is  inwardly  corrupt  and  wrath-deserving  ;  he  does  not  say  it 
is  not  condemned  unless  it  has  committed  overt  acts  of  sinning. 
When  these  two  errors  of  interpretation  are  eliminated,  no  passages 
remain  which  would  seem  to  imply  the  salvation  of  all  who  die  in 
infancy. 

8  That  Bullinger  agreed  with  Zwingli  in  holding  that  all  who  die 
in  infancy  are  saved  is  repeatedly  asserted  by  Dr.  Schaff,  but  with- 
out the  adduction  of  evidence,  unless  we  are  to  read  the  note  in 
Creeds  of  Christendom,  L,  642,  note  3,  as  directing  us  to  the  passages 


202  THE  DOCTRINE    OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

that  all  infants  dying  in  infancy  are  saved  ;  the  proba- 
bility is  distinctly  to  the  contrary. 

The  constitutive  principles  of  Zwingli's  teaching, 
however,  are  not  only  the  common  conviction  of  all 
the  Reformed,  but  are  even  the  essential  postulates  of 
the  whole  Reformed  system.  That  the  salvation  of 
men  depends  ultimately  upon  nothing  except  the  free 
election  of  God  must  be  the  hinge  of  all  Reformed 
thinking  in  the  sphere  of  soteriology  ;  and  differences 
relative  to  the  salvation  of  infants  can  arise  within  the 
limits  of  Reformed  thought  only  on  the  two  points  of 
what  the  signs  of  election  and  reprobation  are,  and 
how  surely  these  signs  may  be  identified  in  men.  On 
these  points  the  Reformed  were  early  divided  into  five 
distinguishable  classes. 

cited  in  Laurence's  B  amp  ton  Lectures,  pp.  266,  267,  as  such.  But 
these  passages  do  not  support  the  contention  ;  they  only  prove  that 
Bullinger  taught  that  infants,  too,  are  salvable  (arguing  for  their  bap- 
tism as  against  the  Anabaptists),  not  that  all  that  die  in  infancy  are 
saved.  In  the  seventh  volume  of  his  History  of  the  Christian 
Church,  published  in  1892,  Dr.  Schaff  somewhat  qualifies  the  sharp- 
ness of  his  previous  statement  by  adding  a  justifying  clause.  Bul- 
linger, he  here  says,  "  agreed  with  Zwingli's  extension  of  salvation 
to  all  infants  and  to  elect  heathen  ;  at  all  events,  he  nowhere  dis- 
sents from  these  advanced  views,  and  published  with  approbation 
Zwingli's  last  work,  where  they  are  most  strongly  expressed" 
(p.  211).  That  the  young  Bullinger— he  was  then  thirty-two— did  put 
forth  his  beloved  master's  last  work,  the  Expositio  Fidei,  addressed 
to  King  Francis,  with  a  preface  of  hearty  appreciation  and  praise,  is 
certainly  true.  But  this  can  scarcely  be  said  to  commit  him  to  every 
statement  in  the  work.  We  know  that  he  did  not  share  his  master's 
doctrine  of  original  sin,  but  labors  to  explain  away  its  peculiarities 
and  reduce  it  to  only  a  verbal  deviation  from  the  common  doctrine 
of  the  Reformers  {Decades  as  above,  ii.,  394,  388).  Why  should  the 
case  be  different  with  reference  to  matters  lying  on  the  periphery  of 
the  doctrinal  system  ?  Surely  the  argument  from  silence  here  is  most 
precarious.  Nor  is  it  clear  that  he  nowhere  betrays  dissent  from 
these  views  of  his  master.  We  have  adduced  passages  which  appear 
to  imply  that  he  did  not  contemplate  heathen  infants  dying  in  infancy 
as  saved.  And  in  a  little  book  on  the  Judgment  Day,  published  in 
1572  {Von  hochsler  Freud  und  gr  ostein  Leyd  des  kunftigenjung- 
sten  Tags,  u.s.w.),  he  certainly  does  not  speak  in  Zwingli's  manner 
of  the  heathen.  The  learned  Zwingli  scholar,  Dr.  J.  W.  Wyss,  of 
Zurich,  suggests  that  Bullinger  may  have  changed  his  mind  in  the 
interval  between  the  ages  of  thirty-two  and  sixty-eight,  a  suggestion 
which  seems  unnecessary  in  the  entire  absence  of  proof  that  he  ever 
had  a  different  mind  from  that  suggested  in  the  Decades  of  1551  as 
well  as  in  his  Judgment  Day  of  1572. 


THE  REFORMED   DOCTRINE.  203 

I.  There  were  a  few,  from  the  very  beginning,  who 
held  with  Zwingli  that  death  in  infancy  is  one  of  the 
signs  of  election,  and  hence  that  all  who  die  in  infancy 
are  the  children  of  God  and  enter  at  once  into  glory. 
After  Zwingli  it  is  probable  that  Bishop  Hooper  was 
the  first  to  embrace  this  view.1  It  is  presented  in  a 
characteristically  restrained  and  winning  way  by  Fran- 
cis Junius  in  his  work  on  Nature  and  Grace,  which  was 
published  in  1592.  "  Some  one  will  say,  perhaps,"  he 
says,  "  '  But  infants  surely  who  are  called  from  this 
life  before  they  commit  actual  sin  are  not  to  be  as- 
signed to  destruction  nor  held  by  us  to  be  lost  on  ac- 
count of  that  natural  vitiosity  which  they  have  con- 
tracted as  an  inheritance  from  their  parents  ?'  1  re- 
spond that  there  is  a  double  question  raised  here  under 
the  appearance  of  one  :  one  is,  What  end  do  they  de- 
serve according  to  God's  justice  by  their  vitiosity  ?  the 
other  is,  What  end  will  they  actually  have  ?  The  first 
we  answer,  briefly,  thus  :  they  cannot  but  deserve  for 
their  vitiosity,  according  to  God's  justice,  separation 
from  God — that  is,  destruction  and  eternal  death.  .  .  . 
Let  us  look,  then,  at  the  second  question.  None  of  us 
is  so  wild,  or  has  ever  been  known  to  be  so  wild,  as  to 
condemn  infants  simpliciter.  Let  those  who  teach  other- 
wise look  to  it  by  what  right  they  do  it,  and  relying  on 
what  authority.  For,  although  they  are  in  themselves 
and  in  our  common  nature  condemnable,  it  does  not 
follow  that  we  ought  to  pass  the  sentence  of  condemna- 
tion upon  them.  What  then  ?  Will  they  be  saved  ? 
We  hold  that  all  those  will  be  saved  who  belong  to  the 
covenant  and  who  belong  to  the  election.  But  those 
infants  belong  to  the  covenant  who  spring  from  cove- 
nanted parents,  whether  immediately—  i.e.,  from  cove- 
nanted father  and  mother,  or  either  ;  or  mediately — i.e., 
from  covenanted  ancestors,  even  though  the  continuity 
has  been  broken,  as  God  says  He  '  will  show  mercy 
unto  thousands  of  generations  '  (Ex.  xx.).  And  this  is 
the  way  in  which  Paul  speaks  of  the  Jews  as  being  in- 
cluded in  his  time  (Rom.  xi.)  ;  nor  do  we  doubt  that  by 

1  See  reference,  ante,  p.  191. 


204  THE  DOCTRINE    OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

the  same  force  of  the  covenant  God  sanctifies  by  the 
covenant  as  His  own  some  from  the  number  of  unbe- 
lievers— for  the  sake  of  the  covenant,  we  mean,  that 
their  ancestors  received.  Some  also,  however,  belong 
to  the  election,  for  God  has  not  cut  off  from  Himself 
the  right  and  authority  to  communicate  more  widely 
the  grace  of  His  own  election  to  those  of  whom  it  can- 
not be  said  that  either  their  parents  or  ancestors  be- 
longed to  the  covenant  ;  for  just  as  of  old  He  called 
into  the  covenant  afresh,  according  to  His  election, 
those  who  were  not  in  the  covenant,  in  order  that  they 
might  be  in  it,  so  also  in  every  age  the  same  benefit 
may  be  conferred  by  His  most  free  action.  And  why 
may  not  this  happen  to  infants  as  well  as  to  others, 
since  of  them  may  be  justly  said  what  the  author  of 
the  Book  of  Wisdom  wrote  of  Enoch,  that '  he  was 
taken  away  lest  evil  should  change  his  mind  or  guile 
ensnare  his  soul  '  ?  All  infants,  therefore,  are  in  them- 
selves condemnable  by  the  justice  of  God  ;  and  if  God 
have  condemned  any  (a  matter  to  be  left  to  Him)  they 
are  justly  condemned  ;  but  we  nevertheless  affirm  that 
those  who  are  of  the  covenant  and  those  who  are  of  the 
election  are  saved — whomsoever  He  has  ordained  to 
eternal  life  ;  and  out  of  charity  we  presume  that  those 
whom  He  calls  to  Himself  as  infants  and  snatches  sea- 
sonably out  of  this  miserable  vale  of  sins  are  rather 
saved  according  to  His  election  and  fatherly  provi- 
dence than  expelled  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  We 
rest  utterly  in  His  counsel."  '  More  lately  this  genial 
judgment  has  become  the  ruling  view,  especially 
among  English-speaking  Calvinists,  and  we  may  select 
Augustus  M.  Toplady  a  and  Robert  S.  Candlish  as  its 
types.  The  latter,  for  example,  writes  : 3  "In  many 
ways  I  apprehend  it  may  be  inferred  from  Scripture 

1  Francis  Junius,  De  Natura  et  Gratia,  1592,  pp.  83,  84  :  the  clos- 
ing words  are  :  "  Ex  charitate  antem  eos  quos  ad  se  infantes  vocat, 
et  tempestive  ex  hac  misera  valle  peccatorum  eripit,  potius  servari 
praesumimus,  secundum  electionem  et  providentiam  ipsius  paternam, 
quam  a  regno  ccelorum  abdicari.  Omnino  conquiescimus  in  consilio 
ejus." 

1  See  reference,  ante,  p.  193. 

8  The  Atonement,  etc.,  1861,  pp.  183,  184. 


THE  REFORMED  DOCTRINE.  205 

that  all  dying  in  infancy  are  elect,  and  are,  therefore, 
saved.  .  .  .  The  whole  analogy  of  the  plan  of  saving 
mercy  seems  to  favor  the  same  view,  and  now  it  may 
be  seen,  if  1  am  not  greatly  mistaken,  to  be  put  beyond 
question  by  the  bare  fact  that  little  children  die.  .  .  . 
The  death  of  little  children  must  be  held  to  be  one  of 
the  fruits  of  redemption.  .  .  ." 

2.  At  the  opposite  extreme  a  very  few  Reformed 
theologians  taught  that  the  only  sure  sign  of  election 
is  faith  with  its  fruits,  and,  therefore,  that  we  can  have 
no  real  ground  of  conviction  concerning  the  fate  of 
any  infant.  As,  however,  God  certainly  has  His  elect 
among  infants  too,  each  man  can  cherish  the  hope  that 
his  own  children  are  of  the  elect.  This  sadly  agnostic 
position,  which  was  afterward  condemned  by  the  whole 
body  of  the  Reformed  assembled  in  the  Synod  of  Dort, 
is  at  least  approached  by  Peter  Martyr,  who  writes  : 
"  Neither  am  1  to  be  thought  to  promise  salvation  to 
all  the  children  of  the  faithful  which  depart  without 
the  sacrament,  for  if  I  should  do  so  I  might  be  counted 
rash  ;  I  leave  them  to  be  judged  by  the  mercy  of  God, 
seeing  1  have  no  certainty  concerning  the  secret  elec- 
tion and  predestination  ;  but  I  only  assert  that  those 
are  truly  saved  to  whom  the  divine  election  extends, 
although  baptism  does  not  intervene.  Just  so,  I  hope 
well  concerning  infants  of  this  kind,  because  I  see  them 
born  from  faithful  parents  ;  and  this  thing  has  prom- 
ises that  are  uncommon  ;  and  although  they  may  not 
be  general,  quoad  omnes,  yet  when  I  see  nothing  to  the 
contrary  it  is  right  to  hope  well  concerning  the  salva- 
tion of  such  infants."  '  Even  after  the  declaration  of 
the  Synod  of  Dort  there  remained  some  to  whom  it 
did  not  seem  possible  to  speak  with  the  Synod's  con- 
fidence of  the  salvation  of  all  the  children  of  believers 
dying  in  infancy.  Thus,  Thomas  Gataker  writes  to 
Richard  Baxter  on  November  ist,  1653, *  that  he  dares 
not  "  herein  speak  so  peremptorilie  as  the  Synod  of 

1  Loci  Communes,  i.,  class.  4,  cap.  5,  §  16  (compare  iv.,  100). 

5  This  letter  is  preserved  in  the  Williams  Library,  London,  and  was 
printed  by  Dr.  Briggs  in  The  Presbyterian  Review,  v.,  705  sg. 
See  pp.  708  and  706. 


206         THE  DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

Dort  doth  ;"  "  nor,"  he  adds,  "  do  Zanchie,  Ursine, 
or  divers  other  of  our  Divines,  of  whom  see  Malderi 
Antisynodica,'  pp.  63,  64.  Tho  1  confess  that  some 
of  them  in  their  Discourses  and  Disputes  overthrow 
sometime  with  one  hand,  what  they  seem  to  build  up 
with  the  other."  That  the  infants  of  believing  parents 
are  included  in  the  covenant  he  did  not  doubt  ;  but 
he  conceived  of  this  covenant  as  rather  conditional 
than  absolute,  and  therefore  felt  it  to  be  "  more  than 
can  certainlie  be  avowed  or  from  Scr.  can  be  averred," 
4 '  that  the  Child  is  therein  considered  as  a  member  of 
the  Parents,  and  is  by  its  parents'  faith  discharged  of 
the  guilt  of  its  sin,  and  put  in  an  actual  state  of  Salva- 
tion." "  Concerning  the  state  of  infants,  even  of  true 
believers,"  therefore,  he  thinks  that  the  Scripture  is 
"verie  sparing;  and  in  averring  ought  therein  per- 
emptorilie  we  have  great  cause  therefore  to  be  verie 
warie."  Something  of  the  same  hesitancy  character- 
izes also  Baxter's  own  statements  on  the  subject.  In 
his  Plain  Scripture  Proof  of  Infant  Church-Membership 
and  Baptism,  the  third  edition  of  which  was  issued  short- 
ly before  the  date  of  the  letter  to  which  Gataker's  was 
a  reply,  he  speaks  in  a  very  similar  manner.  "  We 
have,"  he  says,  "  a  stronger  probability  than  he 
[Tombes]  mentioneth  of  the  salvation  of  all  the  Infants 
of  the  Faithfull  so  dying,  and  a  certainty  of  the  salva- 
tion of  some.  ...  If  any  will  go  farther  and  say  that 
God's  assuring  mercy  to  them,  and  calling  them  blessed, 
and  covenanting  to  be  their  God,  with  the  rest  of  the 
Arguments,  will  prove  more  than  a  probability,  even 
a  full  certainty  of  the  salvation  of  all  Believers'  Infants 
so  dying  ;  though  I  dare  not  say  so  my  selfe,  yet  I  pro- 
fess to  think  this  opinion  far  better  grounded  than  Mr. 

1  Dr.  Briggs  prints  "  Antisquodica,"  which  is  a  mere  blunder,  of 
course,  for  Gataker's  "  Antisynodica."  Malderus  was  bishop  of  Ant- 
werp and  a  prolific  writer,  author  of  a  number  of  commentaries  and 
theological  and  ethical  treatises.  The  book  cited  by  Gataker  was 
published  at  Antwerp  by  Balthasar  Moretus,  in  1620,  and  is  a  volume 
of  over  300  8 vo  pages.  Its  full  title  is  :  Antisynodica,  sive  Animad- 
versiones  in  decreta  conventus  Dordraceni,  quam  vocant  synodum 
nationalem,  de  quinque  doctrinae  capitihus  inter  Remonstrantes  et 
Contra-Remonstrantes  controversis. 


THE  REFORMED  DOCTRINE.  20J 

T[ombs]'s,  that  would  shut  them  all  out  of  the  Church."  ' 
Twenty  years  later  he  returns  to  the  question,  and 
treats  it  at  great  length.  He  thinks  that  "  there  can 
no  promise  or  proof  be  produced  that  all  unbaptized 
Infants  are  saved,  either  from  the  poena  damni  or 
sensus,  or  both  ;"  but,  on  the  other  hand,  he  can  now 
"  say,  as  the  Synod  of  Dort,  Art.  I.,  that  Believing  Par- 
ents have  no  cause  to  doubt  of  the  salvation  of  their  children 
that  dye  in  infancy,  before  they  commit  actual  sin  ;  that 
is,  not  to  trouble  themselves  with  fears  about  it :"  and 
he  thinks  ' '  it  very  probable  that  this  ascertaining  prom- 
ise belongeth  not  only  to  the  natural  seed  of  believers, 
but  to  all  whom  they  have  the  true  power  and  right  to 
dedicate  in  covenant  to  God."  Still,  however,  he 
"  dares  not  say"  that  he  is  "  undoubtedly  certain  ofit;,r 
he  is  giving  opinions,  not  convictions.2  A  hint  of  the 
same  unwillingness  to  make  the  affirmation  of  the  sal- 
vation of  the  children  of  believers  absolute  is  found 
even  in  the  statement  of  the  Compendium  of  John 
Marck.  "  Nor  is  it  to  be  doubted,"  he  says,  "  that  to 
those  reprobated,  there  are  likewise  most  justly  to  be 
referred  as  well  the  Gentiles  who  are  strangers  to  the 
proclamation  of  the  Gospel  as  the  infants  of  unbeliev- 
ers, while  we  have  good  hope  for  those  of  believers 
because  of  God's  promise  (Gen.  xvii.  7,  etc.),  although 
they  are  in  themselves  not  less  damnable,  and  possibly 
some  of  them  are  even  to  be  damned  (cceteroquin  in  se 
non  minus  damnabilibus,  et  forte  quibusdam  etiam  damnan- 
dis).  For  although  concerning  individual  persons  of 
Gentiles  and  of  infants  born  of  unbelievers  we  neither 
can  nor  wish  to  determine  anything  particularly,  be- 
cause of  God's  freedom  and  the  frequently  hidden  paths 
of  the  Spirit,  yet  all  these  are  by  nature  children  of 
wrath,  impure,  alien,  and  remote  from  God,  without 
hope,  left  to  themselves  (cf.  Eph.  ii.  3  ;  1  Cor.  vii.  14  ; 
Eph.  ii.  12,  17  ;  Acts  xiv.  16,  etc.)  ;  God  has  revealed 
nothing  concerning  a  salvation  decreed  or  to  be  wrought 

1  Op.  cit.,  ed.  3,  1653,  PP-  76  and  78. 

5  A  Christian  Directory,  etc.,  London,  1673,  p.  807  sq.  See  p.  809. 
("Christian  Ecclesiastics:  Ecclesiastical  Cases  of  Conscience," 
Quest.  35.) 


208  THE  DOCTRINE   OP  INFANT  SALVATION. 

for  them  ;  and  they  are  destitute  of  the  ordinary  means 
of  grace."  l 

To  the  great  body  of  Calvinists,  however,  both  of 
these  views  seemed  insufficiently  in  accord  with  "  what 
is  written."  The  one  appeared  to  err  by  going  be- 
yond, and  the  other  by  falling  short  of,  the  warrant  of 
Scripture.  All  their  thought  on  this  subject  took  its 
start  from  the  cardinal  scriptural  fact  of  the  covenant;* 
and  they  were  jealous  of  everything  which  seemed  to 
dull  the  sharpness  of  the  distinction  between  the  cov- 
enanted children  of  believers  and  the  uncovenanted 
children  of  unbelievers.  Triglandius  speaks  not  for 
himself  alone  but  for  practically  the  whole  body  of  the 
Reformed  when,  in  answer  to  the  suggestion  of  Epis- 
copius  that ' '  it  makes  no  difference  whether  the  in- 
fants are  children  of  believers  or  unbelievers,  since  the 
same  innocence  is  found  in  all  infants  as  such,"  he  re- 
plies :  "  But  to  us  the  two  do  not  stand  on  the  same 
footing  ;  since  the  one  are  included  in  the  covenant  of 
God  and  the  others  are  strangers  to  that  covenant 
(Gen.  xvii.  7  ;  Eph.  ii.  11,  12).  For  this  reason  children 
of  unbelieving  Gentiles  are  said  to  be  impure,  but  those 
of  believers  holy  (1  Cor.  vii.  14)  ;  wherefore  also  Peter 
says,  when  exhorting  the  Jews  to  repentance  and  faith 
(Acts  ii.  39),  '  To  you  is  the  promise  {i.e.,  of  remission 
of  sins  and  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost),  and  to  your 
children,  and  to  all  who  are  afar  off  whom  our  Lord 
God  shall  call.'"1  And  John  Gerhard  might  have 
quoted  many  more  names  than  those  of  Calvin,  Beza, 
Sadeel,  Ursinus,  Gentilis,  and  Musculus,  as  affirming 
that  "  the  infants  of  believers,  all  alike,  whether  bap- 
tized or  unbaptized,  are  rightly  holy  from  their  mothers' 
womb  by  the  inheritance  of  the  promise,  and  enjoy 
eternal  salvation  in  the  covenant  and  company  of 
God. ' '  ■    With  this  central  point  of  agreement,  the  great 

1  Joannis  Marckii  Compendium,  etc.  (1752),  p.  147  (cap.  vii., 
§  xxxiii.).  In  defending  Marck's  suggestion,  De  Moor  quotes  a 
similar  passage  from  the  Censura  Confess.  Remonstr.,  and  another 
from  Triglandius  very  much  to  the  same  effect  as  Gataker's. 

4  Antapolog.,  caput.  13,  p.  207a. 

s  Loci.,  ix.,  p.  281.  edition  of  1769. 


THE  REFORMED  DOCTRINE.  209 

body  of  Calvinists  differed  among  themselves  only  in 
their  belief  concerning  the  destiny  of  infants  dying 
outside  the  covenant,  and  on  this  point  parted  into 
three  varieties  of  opinion. 

3.  Many  held  that  faith  and  the  promise  are  sure 
signs  of  election,  and  accordingly  that  all  believers  and 
their  children  are  certainly  saved  ;  but  that  the  lack  of 
faith  and  the  promise  is  an  equally  sure  sign  of  repro- 
bation, so  that  all  the  children  of  unbelievers  dying 
such  are  equally  certainly  lost.  The  younger  Span- 
heim,  for  example,  writes  :  "  Confessedly,  therefore, 
original  sin  is  a  most  just  cause  of  positive  reprobation. 
Hence  no  one  fails  to  see  what  we  should  think  con- 
cerning the  children  of  pagans  dying  in  their  child- 
hood ;  for  unless  we  acknowledge  salvation  outside  of 
God's  covenant  and  Church  (like  the  Pelagians  of  old, 
and  with  them  Tertullian,  Epiphanius,  Clement  of  Al- 
exandria, of  the  ancients,  and  of  the  moderns,  Andra- 
dius,  Ludovicus  Vives,  Erasmus,  and  not  a  few  others, 
against  the  whole  Bible),  and  suppose  that  all  the  chil- 
dren of  the  heathen,  dying  in  infancy,  are  saved,  and 
that  it  would  be  a  great  blessing  to  them  if  they  should 
be  smothered  by  the  midwives  or  strangled  in  the  cra- 
dle, we  should  humbly  believe  that  they  are  justly 
reprobated  by  God  on  account  of  the  corruption  \labes) 
and  guilt  {reatus)  derived  to  them  by  natural  propaga- 
tion. Hence,  too,  Paul  testifies  (Rom.  v.  14)  that  death 
has  passed  upon  them  which  have  not  sinned  after  the 
similitude- of  Adam's  transgression,  and  distinguishes 
and  separates  (1  Cor.  vii.  14)  the  children  of  the  cove- 
nanted as  holy  from  the  impure  children  of  unbeliev- 
ers." 1  Somewhat  similarly  Stapfer,  alter  affirming 
the  salvation  of  the  infants  of  believers,  dying  such, 
continues  :  "  As  to  the  children  of  unbelievers,  we  be- 
lieve, indeed,  that  they  will  be  separated  from  com- 
munion with  God  ;  and  hence,  because  as  children  of 
wrath  and  cursing  they  are  excluded  from  the  beatific 
communion  with  God,  they  will  be  damned" — though  he 
eases  the  apparent  harshness  of  his  language  by  recalling 

1  Opera,  Hi.,  cols.  1173-74,  §  22. 


2io  THE  DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

the  fact  of  various  degrees  of  punishment  in  hell.1  On 
an  earlier  page*  we  have  quoted  a  passage  from  Usher's 
Body  of  Divinity  to  the  same  effect.  That  work  was  a 
compilation,  and  we  find  the  same  words  in  an  earlier 
Catechism  published  by  Samuel  Crooke,8  which  may 
stand  as  an  example  from  English  ground  of  this  very 
widespread  opinion. 

4.  More  held  that  faith  and  the  promise  are  certain 
signs  of  election,  so  that  the  salvation  of  believers' 
children  is  certain,  while  the  lack  of  the  promise  only 
leaves  us  in  ignorance  of  God's  purpose  ;  nevertheless 
that  there  is  good  ground  for  asserting  that  both  elec- 
tion and  reprobation  have  place  in  this  unknown 
sphere.  Accordingly  they  held  that  all  the  infants  of 
believers,  dying  such,  are  saved,  but  that  some  of  the 
infants  of  unbelievers,  dying  such,  are  lost.  Probably 
as  much  as  this  is  intended  to  be  asserted  by  Thomas 
Goodwin  when  to  the  question,  "  Doth  God  inflict  eter- 
nal death  merely  for  the  corruption  of  nature  upon  any 
infants  ?"  he  answers  :  "  My  brethren,  it  must  be  said, 
Yes  :  we  are  children  of  wrath  by  nature  ;  and  unless 
there  come  in  election  amongst  them,  for  it  is  election 
saveth  and  is  the  root  of  salvation,  it  must  needs  be 
so.  .  .  .  But  you  will  say,  Do  these  perish  ?  or 
Doth  God  let  those  perish  ?  Doth  His  wrath  seize 
upon  them  ?  Not  only  what  the  text  [Eph.  ii.  3]  saith, 
but  that  in  Rom.  v.  is  clear  for  it.  .  .  .  It  is  true  elec- 
tion knows  its  own  amongst  infants,  but  it  must  be  free 
grace,  it  must  be  by  grace  that  ye  are  saved,  for  clearly 
by  nature  ye  are  all  children  of  wrath.  Therefore  the 
Lord,  as  He  will  have  instances  of  all  sorts  that  are  in 
heaven,  so  He  will  have  some  that  are  in  hell  for  their 
sin  brought  into  the  world."  *  But  probably  no  higher 
expression  of  this  general  view  can  be  found  than  John 
Owen's.  He  argues  that  there  are  two  ways  in  which 
God  saves  infants.  "  (1)  By  interesting  them  in  the 
covenant,  if  their  immediate  or  remote  parents  have 

1  Institut.  Theolog.  Polemic,  17 16,  iv.,  518, 
»  See  above,  p.  191. 

3  Guide  unto  True  Blessedness,  etc.,  ed.  2,  1614. 
*  Works,  ii.,  135-36. 


THE   REFORMED   DOCTRINE.  21 1 

been  believers.  He  is  a  God  of  them  and  of  their  seed, 
extending  his  mercy  to  a  thousand  generations  of 
them  that  fear  him.  '  (2)  By  his  grace  of  election 
which  is  most  free  and  not  tied  to  any  conditions,  by 
which  I  make  no  doubt  but  God  taketh  many  unto  him 
in  Christ  whose  parents  never  knew  or  had  been  de- 
spisers  of  the  Gospel."  a 

5.  Most  Calvinists  of  the  past,  however,  have  held 
that  faith  and  the  promise  are  marks  by  which  we  may 
know  assuredly  that  all  those  who  believe  and  their 
children,  dying  such,  are  elect  and  saved  ;  while  the 
absence  of  sure  marks  of  either  election  or  reprobation 
in  infants,  dying  such  outside  the  covenant,  leaves  us 
without  ground  for  inference  concerning  them,  and 
they  must  therefore  be  left  to  the  judgment  of  God, 
which,  however  hidden  from  us,  is  assuredly  just  and 
holy  and  good.  This  agnostic  view  of  the  fate  of  un- 
covenanted  infants  has  been  held,  of  course,  in  con- 
junction with  every  degree  of  hope  or  the  lack  of  hope 
concerning  them,  and  thus  in  the  hands  of  the  several 
theologians  it  approaches  each  of  the  other  views. 
Petrus  de  Witte  may  stand  as  one  example  of  it.  He 
says  :  "  We  must  adore  God's  judgments  and  not  curi- 
ously inquire  into  them.  Of  the  children  of  believers 
it  is  not  to  be  doubted  but  that  they  shall  be  saved, 
inasmuch  as  they  belong  unto  the  covenant.  But  be- 
cause we  have  no  promise  for  the  children  of  unbeliev- 
ers we  leave  them  to  the  judgment  of  God."  '  Our  own 
Jonathan  Dickinson  *  may  stand  as  another.  "  It  may  be 
further  urged  against  this  proposition,"  he  says,  "That  it 
drives  multitudes  of  poor  infants  to  Hell  who  never  commit- 
ted any  actual  Sin  ;  and  is  therefore  a  Doctrine  so  cruel  and 
unmerciful  as  to  be  unworthy  of  God.  To  this  I  answer 
that  greatest  Modesty  becomes  us  in  drawing  any  Con- 
clusions on  this  Subject.     We  have  indeed  the  highest 

1  It  is,  perhaps,  worth  noting  that  this  is  the  general  Calvinistic 
view  of  what  "children  of  believers"  means.  Compare  Calvin, 
Tracts,  vol.  Hi.,  p.  351  ;  and  also  Junius  as  quoted  above,  p.  203. 

*  Works,  x.,  81  ;  compare  v.,  137. 
1  Catechism,  q.  37. 

*  The  True  Scripture  Doctrine  concerning  some  Important 
Points  of  Christian  Faith,  etc.     Boston,  1741,  pp.  123,  124. 


212  THE  DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

Encouragement  to  dedicate  our  children  to  Christ,  since 
he  has  told  us,  Of  such  is  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  ;  and  the 
strongest  Reason  to  Hope  as  to  the  Happiness  of  those 
deceased  Infants,  who  have  been  thus  dedicated  to  him. 
But  God  has  not  been  pleased  to  reveal  to  us  how  far 
he  will  extend  His  uncovenanted  Mercy  to  others  that 
die  in  Infancy. — As,  on  the  one  Hand,  I  don't  know  that 
the  Scripture  anywhere  assures  us  that  they  shall  all 
be  saved :  So,  on  the  other  Hand,  we  have  not  (that  1 
know  of)  any  Evidence,  from  Scripture  or  the  Na- 
ture of  Things,  that  any  of  them  will  eternally  perish. — 
All  those  that  die  in  Infancy  may  (for  aught  we  know) 
belong  to  the  Election  of  Grace  ;  and  be  predestinated  to 
the  Adoption  of  Children.  They  may,  in  Methods  to  us 
unknown,  have  the  benefits  of  Christ's  Redemption  ap- 
plied to  them  ;  and  thereby  be  made  Heirs  of  Eternal 
Glory.  They  are  (it  is  true)  naturally  under  the  Guilt 
and  Pollution  of  Original  Sin  ;  but  they  may,  notwith- 
standing this,  for  any  thing  that  appears  to  the  con- 
trary, be  renewed  by  the  gracious  Influences  of  the 
Spirit  of  God,  and  thereby  be  made  mete  for  Eternal 
Life.  It  therefore  concerns  us,  without  any  bold  and 
presumptuous  conclusions,  to  leave  them  in  the  Hands 
of  that  God  whose  tender  Mercies  are  over  all  His 
Works."  It  is  this  cautious,  agnostic  view  which  has 
the  best  historical  right  to  be  called  the  general  Cal- 
vinistic  one,  and  it  has  persisted  as  such  until  the  pres- 
ent day  in  all  but  English-speaking  lands.  One  of  the 
ablest  living  Calvinistic  thinkers,  for  example,  Dr. 
A.  Kuyper,  of  Amsterdam,  writes  as  follows  :  "  Con- 
stantly and  unwaveringly  the  Reformed  Confession 
stations  itself  on  the  standpoint  of  the  covenant  and 
withholds  baptism  from  all  who  stand  outside  the  cov- 
enant, because  it  belongs  to  those  within  the  covenant. 
To  be  sure,  the  Reformed  Confession  does  not  pass 
judgment  on  the  children  of  heathen  who  die  before 
coming  to  years  of  discretion.  They  depend  on  God's 
mercy,  widened  as  broadly  as  possible.  But  where  the 
Scriptures  are  silent,  the  Confession,  too,  preserves 
silence.  Men  know  nothing  here  and  can  say  nothing. 
Mere  conjecture  and  imagination  have  no  right  to  enter 


THE  REFORMED  DOCTRINE.  213 

so  serious  a  matter.  The  lot  of  these  numerous  chil- 
dren belongs  to  the  hidden  things  that  are  for  the  Lord 
God,  and  is  not  included  among  the  things  which  He 
has  revealed  to  the  children  of  men.  Revealed,  how- 
ever, is  the  matter  of  the  covenant,  and  this  cove- 
nant makes  known  to  us  the  remarkable  rule  that  God 
has  been  pleased  to  set  His  holy  election  in  connection 
with  the  bond  of  generation."1  Van  Mastricht  cor- 
rectly says  that  while  the  Reformed  hold  that  infants 
are  liable  to  reprobation,  yet ' '  concerning  believers'  in- 
fants .  .  .  they  judge  better  things.  But  unbelievers' 
infants,  because  the  Scriptures  determine  nothing  clear- 
ly on  the  subject,  they  judge  should  be  left  to  the  Di- 
vine discretion."  a 

The  Reformed  Confessions  with  characteristic  cau- 
tion refrain  from  all  definition  upon  the  negative  side 
of  this  great  question,  and  thus  confine  themselves  to 
emphasizing  the  gracious  doctrine  common  to  the 
whole  body  of  Reformed  thought.  The  fundamental 
Reformed  doctrine  of  the  Church  is  nowhere  more 
beautifully  stated  than  in  the  sixteenth  article  of  the 
Old  Scotch  Confession,  while  its  polemical  appendix 
of  1580,  in  its  protest  against  the  errors  of  "  antichrist," 
specifically  mentions  "  his  cruell  judgement  againis 
infants  departing  without  the  sacrament  :  his  absolute 
necessitie  of  baptisme."  No  synod  probably  ever  met 
which  labored  under  greater  temptation  to  declare  that 
some  infants,  dying  in  infancy,  are  reprobate,  than  the 
Synod  of  Dort.  Possibly  nearly  every  member  of  it 
held  as  his  private  opinion  that  there  are  such  infants. 
And  the  certainly  very  shrewd  but  scarcely  sincere 
methods  of  the  Remonstrants  in  shifting  the  form  in 
which  this  question  came  before  the  Synod  were  very 
irritating.  But  the  fathers  of  Dort,  with  truly  Re- 
formed loyalty  to  the  positive  declarations  of  Scrip- 
ture, confined  themselves  to  a  clear  testimony  to  the 
positive  doctrine  of  infant  salvation  and  a  repudiation 
of  the  calumnies  of  the  Remonstrants,  without  a  word 
of  negative  inference.     ' '  Since  we  are  to  judge  of  the 

1  De  Heraut,  for  September  7th,  1890:  c/.  /h^1i^±t^-- 
3  Theoretico-Pract.  TheoL  (1724).  P-  308. 


214         THE  DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

will  of  God  from  His  Word,"  they  say,  "  which  testi- 
fies that  the  children  of  believers  are  holy,  not  by  na- 
ture, but  in  virtue  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  in  which 
they  together  with  their  parents  are  comprehended, 
godly  parents  have  no  reason  to  doubt  of  the  election 
and  salvation  of  their  children  whom  it  pleaseth  God 
to  call  out  of  this  life  in  their  infancy"  (cap.  i.,  art. 
xvii.).  Accordingly  they  repel  in  the  Conclusion  the 
calumny  that  the  Reformed  teach  "  that  many  children 
of  the  faithful  are  torn  guiltless  from  their  mothers' 
breasts  and  tyrannically  plunged  into  hell."  '  It  is 
easy  to  say  that  nothing  is  here  said  of  the  children  of 
any  but  the  "  godly"  and  of  the  "faithful."  This  is 
true.  And  therefore  it  is  not  implied  (as  is  often 
thoughtlessly  asserted)  that  the  contrary  of  what  is 
here  asserted  is  true  of  the  children  of  the  ungodly  ; 
but  nothing  is  taught  of  them  at  all.  It  is  more  to  the 
purpose  to  observe  that  it  is  asserted  here  that  all  the 
children  of  believers,  dying  such,  are  saved  ;  and  that 
this  assertion  is  an  inestimable  advance  on  that  of  the 
Council  of  Trent  and  that  of  the  Augsburg  Confession 
that  baptism  is  necessary  to  salvation,  as  well  as  upon 
the  ominous  silence  of  the  Anglican  Prayer  Book  as  to 
all  who  die  unbaptized.  It  is,  in  a  word,  the  confes- 
sional doctrine  of  the  Reformed  churches  and  of  the 
Reformed  churches  alone,  that  all  believers'  children, 
dying  in  infancy,  are  saved. ? 

What  has  been  said  of  the  Synod  of  Dort  may  be 
repeated  of  the  Westminster  Assembly.     The  Vvest- 

1  The  language  here  used  has  a  not  uninteresting  history.  It  is 
Calvin's  challenge  to  Castellio  :  "  Put  forth  now  thy  virulence  against 
God,  who  hurls  innocent  babes  torn  from  their  mothers*  breasts  into 
eternal  death"  (Be  Occulta  Dei  Providentia,  in  Opp.  ed.,  Amst., 
yiii.,  pp.  644-45).  The  underlying  conception  that  God  condemns 
infants  to  eternal  death  may,  no  doubt,  be  Calvin's  ;  but  the  mode  of 
expression  is  Calvin's  reductio  ad  absurdum  (or  rather  ad  blasphe- 
miam)  of  Castellio's  opinions.  Nevertheless  the  Remonstrants  al- 
lowed themselves  in  their  polemic  zeal  to  apply  the  whole  sentiment 
to  the  orthodox,  and  that,  even  in  a  still  more  sharpened  form — viz., 
with  reference  to  believers'  children.  This  very  gross  calumny  the 
Synod  repels.  Its  deliverance  is  subjected  to  a  very  sharp  and  not 
very  candid  criticism  by  Ei'iscopius  {Opera  I.,  i.,  p.  176,  and  specially 
II.,  p.  28). 

I 


THE   REFORMED  DOCTRINE.  215 

minster  divines  were  generally  at  one  in  the  matter  of 
infant  salvation  with  the  doctors  ot  Dort,  but,  like 
them,  they  refrained  from  any  deliverance  as  to  its 
negative  side.  That  death  in  infancy  does  not  preju- 
dice the  salvation  of  God's  elect  they  asserted  in  the 
chapter  of  their  Confession  which  treats  of  the  appli- 
cation of  Christ's  redemption  to  His  people  :  "  All 
those  whom  God  hath  predestined  unto  life,  and  those 
only,  He  is  pleased,  in  His  appointed  and  accepted 
time,  effectually  to  call,  by  His  word  and  Spirit,  .  .  . 
so  as  they  come  most  freely,  being  made  willing  by 
His  grace.  .  .  .  Elect  infants  dying  in  infancy  are 
regenerated  and  saved  by  Christ,  through  the  Spirit 
who  worketh  when,  and  where,  and  how  He  pleas- 
eth."  '     With  this  declaration  of  their  faith  that  such 

1  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  X.,  i.  and  iii.  The  opinion 
that  a  body  of  non-elect  infants  dying  in  infancy  and  not  saved  is 
implied  in  this  passage,  although  often  controversially  asserted,  is 
not  only  a  wholly  unreasonable  opinion  exegetically,  but  is  absolutely 
negatived  by  the  history  of  the  formation  of  this  clause  in  the  Assem- 
bly as  recorded  in  the  Minutes,  and  has  never  found  favor  among 
the  expositors  of  the  Confession.  David  Dickson's  (1684)  treatment 
of  the  section  shows  that  he  understands  it  to  be  directed  against  the 
Anabaptists  ;  and  all  careful  students  of  the  Confession  understand 
it  as  above,  including  Shaw,  A.  A.  Hodge,  Macpherson,  Mitchell, 
and  Beattie.  This  is  true  of  all  schools  of  adherents  to  the  Confes- 
sion. See,  e.g.,  Lyman  Beecher  {Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims,  1828,  i., 
pp.  49,  81) :  "  The  phrase  '  elect  infants,'  which,  in  his  usual  way,  the 
reviewer  takes  for  granted  implies  that  there  are  infants  who  are  not 
elect,  implies  no  such  thing."  "  But  this  Confession,  which  repre- 
sented the  Calvinism  of  Old  England  and  New,  and  which  expresses 
also  the  doctrinal  opinions  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  and  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  in  the  United  States,  teaches  neither  directly  nor  by 
implication  that  infants  are  damned."  Compare  also  Philip  Schaff, 
Creeds  of  Christendom,  i.,  380,  795.  Compare  also  The  Presbyterian 
Pastor's  Catechis?n,  by  the  Rev.  John  H.  Bockok,  D.D.  (Presby- 
terian Board,  1857)  :  "  Q.  13.  Why  do  we  not  baptize  the  i?ifant 
children  of  unbelievers  ?  A.  1.  Not  because  we  think  such  children 
would  be  lost  if  they  died  in  infancy.  We  do  not  think  children  will 
be  saved  on  account  of  their  baptism,  but  through  the  merits  of 
Christ.  Baptism  does  not  confer  salvation,  but  only  acknowledges 
and  recognizes  it.  2.  Non-elect  infants  are  such  as  do  not  die  in 
infancy,  but  grow  up  to  be  wicked  and  impenitent  men,  as  Cain, 
Herod,  Judas,  Voltaire,  Paine."  The  impression  that  the  phrase 
"  elect  infants  dying  in  infancy,"  implies  as  its  contrast  "  non-elect 
infants  dying  in  infancy,"  rather  than  "  elect  infants  living  to  grow 
up,"  is  probably  due  in  some  measure  to  lack  of  acquaintance  with 
the  literature  of  the  subject.      A  glance  into  Cornelius  Burges's 


216  THE  DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

of  God's  elect  as  die  in  infancy  are  saved  by  His  own 
mysterious  working  in  their  hearts,  although  incapable 
of  the  response  of  faith,  they  were  content.  Whether 
these  elect  comprehend  all  infants,  dying  such,  or  some 
only — whether  there  is  such  a  class  as  non-elect  in- 
fants dying  in  infancy,  their  words  neither  say  nor 
suggest.  No  Reformed  confession  enters  into  this 
question  ;  no  word  is  said  by  any  one  of  them  which 
either  asserts  or  implies  either  that  some  infants  are 
reprobated^or  that  all  are  saved.  What  has  been  held 
in  common  by  the  whole  body  of  Reformed  theolo- 
gians on  this  subject  is  asserted  in  these  confessions  ; 
of  what  has  been  disputed  among  them  the  confessions 
are  silent.  And  silence  is  as  favorable  to  one  type  of 
belief  as  to  another. 

treatise  entitled  Baptismal  Regeneration  of  Elect  Infants,  which 
was  published  in  1629,  will  supply  a  number  of  instances  of  the  use  of 
the  phrase  in  the  latter  contrast.  For  example  :  ' '  Elect  infants  that  live 
to  years  .  .  .  yet  such  as  dye  in  infancy"  (p.  166).  Some  think  Calvin 
in  his  Institutes,  iv.,  16,  21,  speaks  only  of  the  "  case  of  elect  infants 
dying  in  infancy,"  "  but  he  is  not  so  to  be  taken,  as  if  he  held  that 
only  elect  infants  who  dye  in  infancy  doe  receive  the  Spirit  in  bap- 
tism :  but  that  all  the  elect,  whether  they  live  or  dye,  doe  ordinarily 
partake  of  the  Spirit  in  that  ordinance"  (p.  164).  "  That  all  elect  in- 
fants doe  ordinarily,  in  Baptism,  receive  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  to  seaze 
upon  them  for  Christ,  and  to  be  in  them  as  the  roote  and  first  principle 
of  regeneration  and  future  newnesse  of  life.  .  .  .  This  I  speake  .  .  . 
with  reference  only  unto  such  Infants  as  dye  not  in  infancy,  but  live 
to  years  of  discretion,  and  then  come  to  be  effectually  called,  and 
actually  converted  by  the  ordinary  means  of  the  word  applied  by  the 
same  Spirit  unto  them,  when  and  how  he  pleaseth.  As  for  the  rest 
of  the  elect  who  dye  infants.  I  will  not  deny  a  further  worke,  some- 
times in,  sometimes  before  baptisme,  to  fit  them  for  heaven"  (p.  3). 
The  relation  of  this  sentence  to  the  statement  in  the  Westminster 
Confession  is  obvious.  Among  the  testimonies  which  Burges  cites 
from  leading  Reformed  theologians  in  support  of  his  contentions,  we 
may  adduce  two,  the  language  of  which  is  closely  similar  to  that  of  the 
Confession.  One  is  from  the  Continental  divine  Junius  (De  Padobapt. 
7),  and  asserts  that  "  elect  infants  are  regenerated  when  they  are  in- 
grafted unto  Christ  (regenerantur  infantes  electi  cum  Christo  inserun- 
tur),  and  this  is  sealed  to  them  when  they  are  baptized"  (quoted  p.  26). 
The  other  is  from  the  English  divine  Whitaker  (De  Sacrum,  in 
Genere,  quast.  i.,  cap.  3,  p.  15),  and  affirms  that  "  God  renews  elect 
infants  dying  in  infancy  by  the  power  of  His  Spirit  (infantes  electos, 
morientes  antequam  adoleverint,  Deus  virtute  Spiritus  sui  renovat)  ; 
but  if  it  falls  to  them  to  five  to  greater  age,  they  are  the  more  incited 
to  seek  renewal,  because  they  know  they  received  its  badge  while 
infants"  (quoted  p.  211). 


THE  REFORMED  DOCTRINE.  217 

Although,  thus,  the  cautious  agnostic  position  as  to  the 
fate  of  uncovenanted  infants  dying  in  infancy  may  fairly 
claim  to  be  historically  the  Calvinistic  view,  it  is  perfect- 
ly obvious  that  it  is  not  per  se  more  Calvinistic  than  the 
others.  The  adherents  of  all  the  types  enumerated 
above  are  clearly  within  the  limits  of  the  Reformed 
system,  and  hold  with  the  same  firmness  to  the  funda- 
mental Reformed  position  that  salvation  is  absolutely 
suspended  on  no  earthly  condition,  but  ultimately  rests 
on  God's  electing  grace  alone,  while  our  knowledge 
of  who  are  saved  depends  on  our  view  of  what  are  the 
signs  of  election  and  of  the  clearness  with  which  they 
may  be  interpreted.  As  these  several  types  differ  only 
in  the  replies  they  offer  to  the  subordinate  question, 
there  is  no  "  revolution"  involved  in  passing  from  one 
to  the  other  ;  and  as  in  the  lapse  of  time  the  balance 
between  them  swings  this  way  or  that,  it  can  only  be 
truly  said  that  there  is  advance  or  retrogression,  not 
in  fundamental  conception,  but  in  the  clearness  with 
which  details  are  read  and  with  which  the  outline  of 
the  doctrine  is  filled  up.  In  the  course  of  the  latter 
half  of  the  eighteenth  century  the  agnostic  view  of  the 
fate  of  uncovenanted  infants,  dying  such,  gradually 
gave  place,  among  English-speaking  Calvinists  at  least, 
to  an  ever-growing  universality  of  conviction  that  these 
infants  too  are  included  in  the  election  of  grace  ;  so 
that  in  the  first  half  of  the  nineteenth  century  it  was 
almost  forgotten  among  American  theologians  that 
anything  else  had  ever  been  believed  among  them. 
Men  like  Henry  Kollock  and  James  P.  Wilson,  of 
course,  retained  consciousness  of  the  past  and  spoke 
with  caution.  "  It  is  in  perfect  consistence,"  says  the 
one,  "  with  both  these  doctrines  [of  original  sin  and 
the  necessity  of  atonement],  that  we  maintain  that 
God  has  ordained  to  confer  eternal  life  on  all  whom 
He  has  ordained  to  remove  from  this  world  before 
they  arrive  at  the  years  of  discretion."  '  And  the  other, 
having  spoken  of  the  desert  of  original  sin,  adds  simi- 
larly :  "  Nevertheless  it  does  not  follow  that  any  dying 

1  Sermons  (Savannah,  Ga.,  1822),  iii.,  pp.  20  sq.  (esp.  p.  23) ;  cf. 
iv.,  p.  273  sq. 

C^r  erf  ! 


218  THE  DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

in  infancy  are  lost,  since  their  salvation  by  Christ  is 
more  than  possible."  '  But  Dr.  Lyman  Beecher,  in  a 
sermon  which  this  declaration  made  famous,  was  almost 
ready  to  assert  that  there  never  had  been  a  Calvinist 
who  believed  that  any  of  those  dying  in  infancy  were 
lost.  "  I  am  aware,"  he  said  in  his  inimitable  way, 
"  that  Calvinists  are  represented  as  believing  and  teach- 
ing the  monstrous  doctrine  that  infants  are  damned, 
and  that  hell  is  doubtless  paved  with  their  bones.  But 
having  passed  the  age  of  fifty,  and  been  conversant  for 
thirty  years  with  the  most  approved  Calvinistic  writ- 
ers, and  personally  acquainted  with  many  of  the  most 
distinguished  Calvinistic  divines  in  New  England,  and 
in  the  Middle  and  Southern  and  Western  States,  I 
must  say  that  I  have  never  seen  nor  heard  of  any  book 
which  contained  such  a  sentiment,  nor  a  man,  minister 
or  layman,  who  believed  or  taught  it.  And  I  feel 
authorized  to  say  that  Calvinists  as  a  body  are  as  far 
from  teaching  the  doctrine  of  infant  damnation  as  any 
of  those  who  falsely  accuse  them.  And  I  would  ear- 
nestly and  affectionately  recommend  to  all  persons  who 
have  been  accustomed  to  propagate  this  slander  that 
they  commit  to  memory  without  delay  the  ninth  com- 
mandment, which  is,  '  Thou  shalt  not  bear  false  wit- 
ness against  thy  neighbor.'  "  a  A  challenge  delivered 
in  such  a  tone  as  this  could  not  fail  of  a  reply,'  and  Dr. 

1  An  Essay  on  the  Probation  of  Fallen  Man,  etc.,  1827,  pp.  15,  16. 
Dr.  H.  M.  Dexter,  in  The  Congregationalist,  December  10th,  1874, 
says  that  Dr.  Wilson,  editing  Ridgeley's  Body  of  Divinity,  "dissents 
from  his  author,  and  argues  effectively  and  at  great  length  in  proof 
that  all  infants  dying  before  actual  transgression  are  '  saved  by  sov- 
ereign mercy,  by  free  favor,  to  the  praise  of  the  glory  of  God's 
grace.'  "  The  reference  given  is  vol.  i.,  p.  422,  but  it  is  wrong  ;  and 
we  have,  consequently,  not  been  able  to  verify  the  statement. 

2  The  Government  of  God  Desirable.  A  sermon  delivered  at 
Newark,  N.  J.,  October,  1808,  during  the  session  of  the  Synod  of 
New  York  and  New  Jersey.  By  Lyman  Beecher,  A.M.,  Pastor  of 
the  Church  of  Christ  in  East  Hampton,  L.  I.  Seventh  edition. 
Boston  :  T.  R.  Marvin,  1827,  8vo,  pp.  27.  P.  15,  note.  This  footnote 
was  added  in  this  (seventh)  edition.  The  sermon  is  also  reprinted  in 
Dr.  Beecher's  Works. 

3  In  three  articles  in  The  Christian  Examiner  for  1827  and  1828 
(vols.  iv.  and  v.),  said  to  be  by  F.  Jenks.  In  The  Spirit  of  the  Pil- 
grims, i.  (1828),  pp.  42  sq.,  78  sq.,  and  149  sq.  Dr.  Beecher  explained 


THE  REFORMED  DOCTRINE.  219 

Beecher's  history  was  soon  set  right  ;  but  his  testimony 
to  the  state  of  opinion  in  his  own  day  on  the  subject  is, 
of  course,  unaffected  by  his  historical  error.  The  same 
state  of  affairs  is  witnessed  also  by  Dr.  Charles  Hodge, 
-who,  as  the  end  of  his  long  life  of  service  as  a  teacher 
of  theology  was  drawing  to  a  close,  could  remark  of 
the  opinion, ' '  that  only  a  certain  part,  or  some  of  those 
who  die  in  infancy,  are  saved  :"  "  We  can  only  say  that 
we  never  saw  a  Calvinistic  theologian  who  held  that 
doctrine."'  Dr.  Hodge's  predecessor  as  teacher  of 
theology  at  Princeton  spoke  of  the  salvation  of  all  in- 
fants dying  such  in  something  of  the  tone  prevalent 
early  in  the  century  :  "  As  infants,  according  to  the 
creed  of  all  Reformed  churches,  are  infected  with  orig- 
inal sin,  they  cannot  without  regeneration  be  qualified 
for  the  happiness  of  heaven.  Children  dying  in  in- 
fancy must,  therefore,  be  regenerated  without  the  in- 
strumentality of  the  Word  ;  and  as  the  Holy  Scriptures 
have  not  informed  us  that  any  of  the  human  family  de- 
parting in  infancy  will  be  lost,  we  are  permitted  to 
hope  that  all  such  will  be  saved."  s  Dr.  Hodge  himself 
speaks  with  more  decision  ; '  and  to-day  few  English- 
that  in  writing  the  note  attacked  his  mind  was  more  upon  contem- 
porary than  past  teachers.  He  says  further  :  "  I  have  only  to  add  that 
I  have  nowhere  asserted  that  Calvinists  as  a  body  teach  that  all  in- 
fants are  certainly  saved.  I  am  aware  that  many,  with  Dickinson 
and  the  Reformers"  (doubtless  a  blunder,  from  Van  Mastricht's  Re- 
formatio "  and  '  moderate  Calvinists  '  have  hoped  that  they  are 
saved,  and  referred  the  event  to  the  unerring  discretion  of  heaven" 
(p.  51).   - 

1  Systematic  Theology,  iii.,  605,  note  4,  published  in  1872.  In  the 
succeeding  words  Dr.  Hodge  approaches,  but  fortunately  does  not 
attain,  the  unhistorical  assertion  of  Dr.  Beecher.  He  adds  :  "  We 
are  not  learned  enough  to  venture  the  assertion  that  no  Calvinist  ever 
held  it ;  but  if  all  Calvinists  are  responsible  for  what  every  Calvinist 
has  ever  said,  and  all  Lutherans  are  responsible  for  everything 
Luther  or  Lutherans  have  ever  said,  then  Dr.  Krauth  as  well  as  our- 
selves will  have  a  heavy  burden  to  carry."  Dr.  Krauth,  of  course, 
found  no  more  difficulty  than  the  writer  in  The  Christian  Examiner 
had  found  in  reply  to  Dr.  Beecher,  in  bringing  together,  in  reply  to 
Dr.  Hodge,  a  great  list  of  Calvinists  who  had  held  this  doctrine. 
The  result  is  found  in  his  Infant  Baptism  and  Infant  Salvation  in 
the  Calvinistic  System,  etc.    (Phila.,  1874,  p.  83.) 

2  The  Life  of  Archibald  Alexander,  D.D.,  etc.,  by  James  W. 
Alexander,  D.D.,  p.  585. 

3  Systematic  Theology,  i.,  26  ;  iii.,  605. 

*  JV   :  ' 

,    ... .  '    .  - 


220  THE  DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

speaking  Calvinists  can  be  found  who  do  not  hold  with 
Toplady,  and  Thomas  Scott,  and  John  Newton,  and 
J.  H.  A.  Bomberger,  '  and  Nathan  L.  Rice,  and  Rob- 
ert J.  Breckinridge,  and  Robert  S.  Candlish,  and 
Thomas  Hamilton,'  and  Charles  Hodge,  and  William 
G.  T.  Shedd,'  and  the  whole  body  of  those  of  recent 
years  whom  the  Calvinistic  churches  delight  to  honor, 
that  all  who  die  in  infancy  are  the  children  of  God  and 
enter  at  once  into  His  glory— not  because  original  sin 
alone  is  not  deserving  of  eternal  punishment  (for  all  are 
born  children  of  wrath),  nor  because  those  that  die  in 
infancy  are  less  guilty  than  others  (for  relative  inno- 
cence would  merit  only  relatively  light  punishment, 
not  freedom  from  all  punishment),  nor  because  they 
die  in  infancy  (for  that  they  die  in  infancy  is  not  the 
cause  but  the  effect  of  God's  mercy  toward  them),  but 
simply  because  God  in  His  infinite  love  has  chosen 
them  in  Christ,  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  by 
a  loving  foreordination  of  them  unto  adoption  as  sons 
in  Jesus  Christ.  Thus,  as  they  hold,  the  Reformed 
theology  has  followed  the  light  of  the  Word  until  its 
brightness  has  illuminated  all  its  corners,  and  the  dark- 
ness has  fled  away. 

"  Ethical ' '    Tendencies. 

The  most  serious  peril  which  the  orderly  develop- 
ment of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  salvation  of  in- 
fants has  had  to  encounter,  as  men  strove  age  after 
age  more  purely  and  thoroughly  to  apprehend  it,  has 
arisen  from  the  intrusion  into  Christian  thought  of  what 
we  may  without  lack  of  charity  call  the  unchristian 
conception  of  man's  natural  innocence.  For  the  task 
which  was  set  to  Christian  thinking  was  to  obtain  a 
clear  understanding  of  God's  revealed  purpose  of 
mercy  to  the  infants  of  a  guilty  and  wrath-deserving 
race.     And  the  Pelagianizing  conception  of  the  inno- 

'  Infant  Salvation  in  its  Relation  to  Infant  Depravity,  Infant 
Regeneration  and  Infant   Baptisjn.      Philadelphia,    1859,   pp.   64, 
109,  196. 
9  Beyond  the  Stars,  ch.  vii.  (pp.  184,  etc.).     *  -\      L  7\   <■  r 

■  Dogmatic  Theology,  ii.,  714.     Cf  «-<-•  A  -/•  A*££~j;  ^^r 


th-'bi-iy*' 


"ETHICAL"    TENDENCIES.  221 

cence  of  human  infancy,  in  however  subtle  a  form  it 
may  be  presented,  puts  the  solution  of  the  problem  in 
jeopardy  by  suggesting  that  no  suchjjroblem  exists 
and  no  solution  is~neeaed.  We  have  seen  Eow  some 
Greek  Fathers  cut  the  knot  with  the  facile  formula  that 
infantile  innocence,  while  not  deserving  of  supernatural 
reward,  was  yet  in  no  danger  of  being  adjudged  to 
punishment.  We  have  seen  how,  in  the  more  active 
hands  of  Pelagius  and  his  companions,  as  part  of  a 
great  unchristian  scheme,  the  assertion  that  there  has 
been  no  such  thing  as  a"  fall"  and  that  every  human 
being  comes  into  the  world  in  the  same  condition  as 
Adam  when  he  came  from  his  Maker's  hands,  men- 
aced Christianity  itself  and  was  repelled  only  by  the 
vigor  and  greatness  of  an  Augustine.  We  have  seen 
how  the  same  conception,  creeping  gradually  into  the 
Latin  Church  in  the  modified  form  of  semi-Pelagianism, 
lulled  her  heart  to  sleep  with  suggestions  of  less  and 
less  ill-desert  for  original  sin,  until  she  neglected  the 
problem  of  infant  salvation  altogether  and  comforted 
herself  with  a  constantly  attenuating  doctrine  of  infant 
punishment.  If  infants  are  so  well  off  without  Christ, 
there  is  little  impulse  to  consider  whether  they  may 
not  be  in  Christ. 

The  Reformed  churches  could  not  hope  to  work  out 
the  problem  free  from  menace  from  the  perennial 
enemy.  From  the  very  beginning  of  their  history,  of 
course,  they  were  continually  called  upon  to  meet  the 
assaults  of  individuals  who  found  that  the  most  telling 
form  they  could  give  their  Pelagian  attack  was  to  charge 
the  Reformed  with  dishonoring  God  by  attributing  to 
Him    cruel   treatment   of    "innocent   infants."1     The 

1  Outstanding  instances  may  be  found  in  Castellio  and  Servetus. 
The  latter  taught  that  infants  are  born  with  hereditary  disease  (morbus) 
of  sin,  indeed,  but  without  guilt,  which  comes  only  with  responsibility, 
i.e.,  with  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  the  age  for  which  he  sets 
at  about  twenty.  Those  who  die  before  that  age  go,  like  all  men,  to 
the  purifying  pains  of  Hades — a  sort  of  purgatory  :  whence  they  are 
released  by  Christ  at  the  resurrection.  They  are  soiled  by  the  ser- 
pent of  original  sin  ;  but  they  are  guilty  of  no  impiety,  and  hence  the 
merciful  and  pitiful  Master  who  gave  His  blessing  tounbaptized  babes 
in  this  life  will  not  condemn  them,  but  will  raise  them  up  at  the  last 
day  and  convey  them  to  heavenly  bliss.     These  tenets  may  be  veri- 


222  THE   DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

crisis  came,  however,  with  the  Remonstrant  contro- 
versy, which  marked  the  first  considerable  Pelagianiz- 
ing  defection  from  the  Reformed  ranks.  Like  all  their 
predecessors,  the  Remonstrants  put  themselves  for- 
ward as  the  defenders  of  "  innocent  infancy"  against 
the  "  barbarity"  of  the  Reformed  doctrine,  which  rep- 
resented them  as  born,  on  account  of  original  sin,  under 
the  condemnation  of  God  ;  and  they  accordingly  pas- 
sionately asserted  the  "  salvation"  of  all  that  die  in  in- 
fancy. "  Neither  does  it  matter,"  said  Episcopius,1 
"  whether  these  infants  are  the  children  of  believers  or 
of  heathen,  for  the  innocence  is  just  the  same  in  infants 
as  infants."  The  anthropology  of  the  Remonstrants, 
however,  was  distinctly  semi-Pelagian,  and  on  that 
basis  no  solid  advance  was  possible  toward  a  sound 
doctrine  of  infant  salvation.  Nor  was  the  matter 
helped  by  their  postulation  of  a  universal  atonement, 
which  lost  in  intention  as  much  as  it  gained  in  exten- 
sion. Infants  may  have  very  little  to  be  saved  from, 
but  their  salvation  from  even  that  cannot  be  wrought 
by  an  atonement  which  only  purchases  for  them  the 
opportunity  for  salvation.  Of  this  opportunity  they 
cannot  avail  themselves,  however  uninjured  by  the  fall 
the  natural  power  of  free  choice  may  be,  for  the  sim- 
ple reason  that  they  die  infants.  Nor  can  God  be 
held  to  make  them,  without  their  free  choice,  partakers 
in  the  atonement  without  an  admission  of  that  sov- 
ereign discrimination  among  men  which  it  was  the 
very  object  of  the  whole  Remonstrant  theory  to  ex- 
clude. It  is  not  strange  that  the  Remonstrants  looked 
with  some  favor  on  the  Romish  theory  of  poena  damni, 

fied  from  the  extracts  given  from  the  Christianismi  Restitutio  by 
Dr.  Schafk,  History  of  the  Christian  Church,  vii.,  pp.  748  so.  Dr. 
Schaff  is  wrong,  however,  in  paralleling  Servetus's  doctrine  of  orig- 
inal sin  with  Zwingli's.  Zwingli  taught  the  universality  of  the  guilt 
of  Adam's  first  sin,  only  denying  that  hereditary  corruption  is  the 
source  of  guilt ;  while  Serve tus  makes  no  more  of  adherent  than  he 
does  of  z'#herent  guilt,  denying  guilt  altogether  to  infants.  On  the 
other  hand,  Servetus's  doctrine  is  curiously  similar  to  that  of  our  mod- 
ern Pelagianizing  Arminians,  as  represented,  say,  by  Drs.  Whedon, 
Miner  Raymond  and  John  Miley. 

1  Opera  Theologica,  ed.  Curcellaeus,  altera  pars.     Goudse,  1665, 
p.  i53«- 


••ETHICAL"    TENDENCIES.  223 

which  would  have  been  more  conformable  to  their 
Pelagianizing  standpoint.  Though  the  doctrine  of 
the  salvation  of  all  infants  dying  in  infancy  became  one 
of  their  characteristic  tenets,  therefore,  it  had  no  logi- 
cal basis  in  their  scheme  of  faith,  and  their  proclama- 
tion of  it  could  have  no  direct  effect  in  working  out  the 
problem.  Indirectly  it  had,  however,  a  twofold  effect. 
On  the  one  hand,  it  retarded  the  true  course  of  the 
development  of  doctrine,  by  leading  those  who  held 
fast  to  biblical  teaching  on  original  sin  and  particular 
election  to  oppose  the  doctrine  of  the  salvation  of  all 
dying  in  infancy,  as  if  it  were  necessarily  inconsistent 
with  those  teachings.  Probably  Calvinists  were  never 
so  united  in  affirming  that  some  infants,  dying  such, 
are  reprobates,  as  in  the  height  of  the  Remonstrant 
controversy.  On  the  other  hand,  so  far  as  the  doc- 
trine of  the  salvation  of  all  infants,  dying  such,  was 
accepted  by  the  anti- Remonstrants,  it  tended  to  bring 
in  with  it,  in  more  or  less  measure,  the  other  tenets 
with  which  it  was  associated  in  the  teaching  of  the 
Remonstrants,  and  thus  to  lead  men  away  from  the 
direct  path  along  which  alone  the  solution  was  to  be 
found. 

Wesleyan  Arminianism  brought  only  an  ameliora- 
tion, not  a  thoroughgoing  correction,  of  the  faults  of 
Remonstrantism.  The  theoretical  postulation  of  orig- 
inal sin  and  natural  inability,  corrected  by  universal 
justification  and  the  gift  to  all  men  of  a  gracious  abil- 
ity on  the  basis  of  universal  atonement  in  Christ,  was 
a  great  advance.  But  it  left  the  salvation  of  infants 
dying  in  infancy  logically  as  unaccounted  for  as  had 
been  done  by  original  Remonstrantism.  A  universal 
atonement  could  scarcely  bring  to  these  infants  more 
than  it  brought  to  such  infants  as  did  not  die  in 
infancy  but  grew  up  to  exhibit  the  corruption  of  their 
hearts  in  appropriate  action  ;  and  surely  this  was  some- 
thing short  of  salvation — at  the  most  an  ability  to  im- 
prove the  grace  given  alike  to  all.  But  infants,  dying 
such,  cannot  improve  grace  ;  and,  therefore,  it  would 
seem,  cannot  be  saved,  unless  we  suppose  a  special  gift 
to  them  over  and  above  what  is  given  to  other  men — a 


224         THE  DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

supposition  subversive  at  once  of  the  whole  Arminian 
contention.  The  assertion  of  the  salvation  of  all  infants 
dying  in  infancy,  although  a  specially  dear  tenet  of 
Wesleyan  Arminianism,  remains,  therefore,  as  with  the 
earlier  Remonstrants,  unconformable  to  the  system. 
The  Arminian  difficulty,  indeed,  lies  one  step  further 
back  ;  it  does  not  make  clear  how  any  infant  dying  in 
infancy  is  to  be  saved.  This  is  thrown  into  startling 
relief  by  such  sentences  as  these  from  a  sermon  by  Dr. 
Phillips  Brooks  :  "  What  do  we  mean  by  original  sin  ? 
Not  surely  that  each  being  comes  into  the  world  guilty, 
already  bearing  the  burden  of  responsible  sin.  If  that 
were  so,  every  infant  dying  before  the  age  of  conscious 
action  must  go  to  everlasting  punishment,  which  hor- 
rible doctrine,  I  think,  nobody  holds  to-day."1  This 
"  horrible  doctrine"  probably  no  one  in  any  age  ever 
avowed  ; 3  but  the  noteworthy  point  is  that  Dr.  Brooks 
found  it  inconceivable  that  anything  deserving  the 
name  of  salvation  could  take  place  "  before  the  age  of 
conscious  action."  If  "  salvation"  were  needed  be- 
fore that,  there  would  be  no  hope  for  those  needing  it. 
And  this  is  logically  involved  in  the  Arminian  principle. 
The  difficulty  which  faces  Arminian  thought  at  this 
point  is  fairly  illustrated  by  the  evident  embarrassment 
of  Arminian  theologians  in  dealing  with  the  whole 
question  of  infant  salvation.  There  are  doubtless  few 
who  will  be  willing  to  follow  Dr.  James  Strong  in  his 
admission  that  the  Arminian  doctrine  of  salvation  is 
inapplicable  to  infants,  and  his  consequent  suggestion 
that  those  who  die  in  infancy  are  incapable  of  salva- 
tion ;  that,  like  "  idiots,  lunatics,  and  other  irresponsi- 
ble human  beings"  (all  of  whom  present  the  same  diffi- 
culty to  a  type  of  thought  which  suspends  salvation 
absolutely  on  a  personal  act  of  rational  choice),  it  may 
be  doubted  whether  they  have  souls,  since  "  the  exist- 
ence of  an  absolutely  undeveloped  soul  is  to  us  incon- 
ceivable." 3     But  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  attempts 

1  Sermons,  vol.  vi.,  Sermon  i,  on  The  Mystery  of  Iniquity. 
''  Something  similar  to  it  has  occasionally  been  held;  see  above,  p.  145. 
3  The  Doctrine  of  a  Future  Life  (New  York,  1891),  p.  94,  note. 
The  text  is  speaking  of  probation  and  of  the  fact  of  reprobation  found- 


"ETHICAL"    TENDENCIES.  225 

that  have  been  made  to  explain,  conformably  to  Ar- 
minian  principles,  the  salvation  of  those  who  die  before 
reaching  the  age  of  responsible  action  have  met  with 
much  success.  The  original  Wesleyan  position,  in  its 
effort  to  evangelicalize  the  Arminian  scheme,  began 
with  allowing  the  evangelical  doctrine  of  original  sin  and 
the  consequent  guilt  of  the  whole  human  race,  and  laid, 
therefore,  the  whole  weight  of  infant  salvation  upon  the 
cancelling  grace  supposed  to  come  equally  to  all  men  on 
the  basis  of  the  atonement  in  Christ.  Though  all  men 
are  by  nature  guilty  and  condemned,  yet  no  one  comes 
into  being  under  mere  nature  but  under  grace  ;  and  ' '  the 
condemnation  resting  upon  the  race  as  such  is  removed 
by  the  virtue  of  the  one  oblation  beginning  with  the 
beginning  of  sin."  '  Every  man  comes  into  the  world, 
therefore,  in  a  saved  state  ;  and  if  he  departs  from  the 
world  again  before  reaching  the  age  of  responsible 
action,  he  enters  at  once  into  the  fruition  of  this  salva- 
tion. This  is  essentially  the  doctrine  not  only  of  Wes- 
ley, and  indeed  of  Arminius  before  him,1  but  hitherto 
of  the  leading  Weslevan  thinkers— of  Fletcher5  and 
Richard  Watson,*  and,  in  our  own  day,  of  W.  B.  Pope  6 

ed  on  it ;  and  the  note  adds  :  "  All  this  is,  of  course,  inapplicable  to 
infants,  idiots,  lunatics  and  other  irresponsible  human  beings  who 
can  hardly  be  called  persons  in  the  strict  sense.  Their  case  has  its 
peculiar  difficulties.  .  .  .  We  may  be  permitted,  however,  to  ven- 
ture the  suggestion  that  where  the  moral  disability  is  congenital  and 
total  there  is  grave  reason  to  doubt  the  existence  of  an  immortal 
spirit  ;  and  perhaps  we  may  be  forced  to  believe  that  immortality  it- 
self is  developed  rather  than  innate.  Certain  it  is  that  the  soul,  as  a 
thinking,  moral  substance,  is  itself  at  least  developed  at  some  point 
of  embryonic  life,  and  why  may  not  its  immortality  be  likewise  a  stage 
in  its  progress  ?  The  perpetuity  or  even  the  existence  of  an  abso- 
lutely undeveloped  soul  is  to  us  inconceivable." 

1  W.  B.  Pope,  Christian  Theology,  ii.,  59. 

•  He  is  defending  his  friend  Borrius,  and  denies  that  Borrius  would 
have  infants  saved  without  the  intervention  of  Christ ;  and  affirms 
that  Borrius's  doctrine  of  infant  salvation  rested  on  the  conception 
that  "  God  has  taken  the  whole  human  race  into  the  grace  of  recon- 
ciliation, and  has  entered  into  a  covenant  of  grace  with  Adam  and 
with  the  whole  of  his  posterity  in  him."  {Works,  Nichols's  trans- 
lation, ii.,  10,  11.) 

3  Works,  i.,  283,  284. 

4  Theological  Institutes,  ii.,  57  sq. 
s  As  above. 


226         THE  DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

and  T.  O.  Summers'  and  all  who  follow  the  original 
type  of  Wesleyan  theology .a  It  may,  indeed,  be  looked 
upon  as  the  official  teaching  of  the  great  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  which  says  in  its  Discipline :  "  We 
hold  that  all  children,  by  virtue  of  the  unconditional 
benefits  of  the  atonement,  are  members  of  the  kingdom 
of  God,  and  therefore  graciously  entitled  to  baptism."  ' 
Therefore  it  is  customary  among  Methodist  theolo- 
gians, in  treating  of  the  benefits  of  the  atonement,  to 
separate  between  the  "  immediate"  or  "  uncondition- 
al" and  the  "  conditional"  benefits,  and  to  speak  of  the 
salvation  of  infants  under  the  former  and  of  the  salva- 
tion of  adults  under  the  latter  caption.  There  have 
naturally  arisen  minor  differences  among  them  as  to 
exactly  what  is  included  in  these  "  unconditional  bene- 
fits" conferred  prenatally  on  all  who  come  into  being. 
The  ordinary  custom  is  to  identify  them  with  "  justifica- 

1  Systematic  Theology,  ii.  39. 

5  This  includes  very  explicitly  the  late  Dr.  Henry  J.  Van  Dyke, 
who  wrote  :  "  We  believe  that  the  satisfaction  which  He  [Christ]  as 
the  seed  of  the  woman  and  Saviour  of  the  world,  rendered  to  God's 
broken  law,  takes  away  the  guilt  and  condemnation  of  Adam's  sin 
from  the  whole  human  race.  We  do  not  say  the  inherited  corruption 
and  depravity  of  our  nature,  which  is  commonly  called  original  sin  ; 
but  we  say  the  guilt  and  condemnation  of  original  sin  ;  so  that  the 
multitude  of  the  redeemed  which  no  man  can  number  will  include 
not  only  all  believers,  but  '  all  who  have  not  sinned  after  the  simili- 
tude of  Adam's  transgression,'  that  is  to  say,  who  die  in  infancy" 
(The  Presbyterian  Review  for  January,  1885,  vol.  vi.,  p.  58  ;  cf. 
The  Church :  Her  Ministry  ana  Sacraments,  p.  106,  where  the 
middle  clause  of  the  above  is  omitted,  but  without  change  of  sense). 
So  also  Dr.  Henry  Van  Dyke  (God  and  Little  Children,  N.  Y.,  1890, 
p.  62  sq.)  :  "  The  obedience  of  Christ  countervails  the  disobedience  of 
Adam  and  blots  it  out  completely.  .  .  .  Original  sin  is  all  atoned 
for  ;  the  guilt  of  it  is  taken  away  from  the  race  by  the  Lamb  of  God." 
Perhaps  a  shade  less  clearly  assertory  of  the  fundamental  Arminian 
soteriologic  principle  is  Dr.  Henry  E.  Robins  ( The  Harmony  of  Ethics 
with  Theology,  1891,  p.  63  sq.)  :  "  The  sentence  of  acquittal  is  the 
first  indispensable  step  in  the  process  of  redemption  which  will  go  on 
to  its  consummation  unless  thwarted  by  personal  moral  resistance. 
Now,  since  infants  dying  in  infancy,  idiots,  the  congenitally  insane, 
and  all  who  in  the  infallible  judgment  of  God  have  not  reached  the 
stature  of  moral  personality,  are  incapable  of  such  intelligent  moral 
resistance,  incapable  of  resisting  the  new  terms  of  salvation  proposed 
under  the  grace  system,  they  become,  we  believe,  on  that  account, 
subjects  of  regeneration  by  the  Holy  Spirit." 

»  Methodist  Discipline,  %  43  (1892). 


"ETHICAL"    TENDENCIES.  227 

tion,"  and  to  speak,  as  standing  over  against  the  "  decree 
of  condemnation"  which  has  been  "  issued  against  origi- 
nal sin,  irresponsibly  derived  from  the  first  Adam,"  of  an- 
other "  decree  of  justification"  which  has  "  issued  from 
the  same  court,  whose  benefits  are  unconditionally 
bestowed  through  the  second  Adam."  '  Others  have 
seen  that  such  a  justification  must  necessarily  drag  in 
its  train  a  "  regeneration"  also,  by  which  the  sinful  de- 
pravity, which  otherwise  infants  would  bring  with 
them  into  the  world,  is  removed.  While  Richard  Wat- 
son draws  off  to  himself  in  his  cautious  hesitancy  to 
affirm  even  actual  "  justification"  of  all  who  come  into 
the  world,  preferring  to  say  that  they  are  "  all  born 
under  the  '  free  gift,'  the  effects  of  the  '  righteousness  ' 
which  extended  to  '  all  men  ;  '  and  this  free  gift  is  be- 
stowed on  them  in  order  to  justification  of  life  ;"  which 
"  justification"  follows  unconditionally,  by  a  process 
of  which  we  are  not  informed,  in  the  case  of  all  who  die 
in  infancy.2  These  minor  variations  of  statement,  how- 
ever, while  they  illustrate  the  difficulties  of  its  construc- 
tion, do  not  affect  the  common  doctrine  ;  which  is, 
briefly,  that  all  men  are  born  into  the  world,  in  princi- 
le,  saved,  and  it  is  therefore  that  they  who  die  in  in- 
ancy  enter  into  life.  Nor  do  they  affect  the  por- 
tentous consequences  which  flow  from  this  doctrine — 
fatal,  it  would  seem,  to  the  whole  system.  For  that  all 
men  enter  the  world  in  a  saved  state  is  assuredly  not 
verifiable  from  experience  ;  those  that  do  not  die  in  in- 
fancy certainly  do  not  exhibit  the  traits  of  salvation  : 
and,  in  order  to  believe  that  all  are  born  in  a  saved  state, 
we  would  seem  to  be  forced  to  postulate  a  universal  in- 
dividual apostasy  to  account  for  universal  sin — a  thing 
which  the  Wesleyan  theologians  are  naturally  somewhat 
loath  to  do. '  Further,  if  all  men  enter  the  world  in  a  saved 
state,  but  with  the  certainty  of  apostatizing  if  they  live  to 

1  The  words  quoted  here  are  Dr.  John  J.  Tigert's  in  Summers's 
Systematic  Theology,  ii.,  39. 

2  Theological  Institutes,  ii.,  59. 

3  Dr.  Pope,  for  example,  says  :  "  We  do  not  assume  a  second  per- 
sonal fall  in  the  case  of  each  individual  reaching  the  crisis  of  respon- 
sibility" {Comp.  Christ.  Theology,  ii.,  59.) 


i 


228         THE  DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

years  of  discretion,  the  difficulty  of  justifying  the  ways 
of  God  with  man  is  surely  vastly  increased  ;  for  we  have 
now  the  permission  of  two  universal  apostasies  to  ac- 
count for  instead  of  one.  Moreover,  it  would  look  as 
if,  in  that  case,  grace  were  openly  exhibited  as  hope- 
lessly weaker  than  nature  ;  and  one  would  seem  justi- 
fied in  douDting  whether  the  grace  which  protects  none 
from  sin  who  live  beyond  infancy  can  be  depended  on 
to  introduce  all  who  die  in  infancy  into  certain  glory. *- 

It  cannot  be  held  strange,  therefore,  that  a  strong  ten- 
dency has  recently  developed  itself  among  Arminian 
theologians  to  discard  entirely  the  assuredly  very  arti- 
ficial scheme  which  postulates  a  purely  theoretical  race 
sin,  corrected  by  an  equally  theoretical  race  salvation 
that  cannot  be  traced  in  any  portion  of  the  race  sub- 
ject to  our  scrutiny,  and  to  revert  to  the  Pelagianizing 
anthropology  of  the  Dutch  Arminians.  From  this 
point  of  view,  which  denies  the  guilt  of  original  sin,  in- 
fants are  thought  to  enter  into  the  world  unfortunates 
indeed,  and  soiled  by  an  inherited  depravity  which 
will  inevitably  cause  them  to  sin  when  responsible  action 
begins,  but  in  the  meantime  under  no  condemnation  ; 
so  that  if  they  die  in  infancy  they  are  liable  to  no  pun- 
ishment and  must  perforce  enter  into  life,  for  which 
they  are  then  unconditionally  fitted  by  grace.  This  is, 
in  general,  the  doctrine  of  Drs.   Whedon,1  Raymond,* 

1  The  Methodist  Quarterly  Review,  1883,  p.  757.  Commentary 
on  Epn.  ii.  3  et  at. 

8  Systematic  Theology,  ii.,  311  so.  Dr.  Raymond  is  not  without 
some  little  hesitation  in  his  rejection  of  the  older  Wesleyan  view. 
"  The  doctrine  of  inherited  depravity,"  he  says,  "involves  the  idea 
of  inherited  disqualification  for  eternal  life.  The  salvation  of  infants, 
then,  has  primary  regard  to  a  preparation  for  the  blessedness  of 
heaven — it  may  have  a  regard  to  a  title  thereto  ;  not  all  newly  cre- 
ated beings,  nor  those  sustaining  similar  relations,  are  by  any  natural 
right  entitled  to  a  place  among  holy  angels  and  glorified  saints.  The 
salvation  of  infants  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  salvation  from  the  peril 
of  eternal  death.  They  have  not  committed  sin,  the  only  thing  that 
incurs  such  a  peril.  The  idea  that  they  are  in  danger  of  eternal  death 
because  of  Adam's  transgression,  is  at  most  nothing  more  than  the 
idea  of  a  theoretic  peril.  But  if  it  be  insisted  that  '  by  the  offence  of 
one,  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  [a  literal  and  actual]  condemna- 
tion,' we  insist  that,  from  that  condemnation,  be  it  what  it  may,  theo- 
retic or  literal,  all  men  are  saved  ;  for  '  by  the  righteousness  of  one, 

X^Ku .,  ^  <^«*VV  fw   *-"^r  >v^/^  ^«.~^  — y*^  c^v  *+ 


"ETHICAL"    TENDENCIES.  229 

John  Miley,1  C.  W.  Miller,1  G.  W.  King,*  and  a  great 
host  of  others  who  are  in  our  day  illustrating  the  in- 
evitable tendency  of  consistent  Arminian  thought  to 
find  its  level  in  a  Pelagian  anthropology.  The  gain  to 
Arminian  thought,  however,  of  substituting  for  the 
formula,  "  All  infants  are  born  saved,"  the  simpler  one 
of  "  All  infants  are  born  innocent  and  need  no  salva- 
tion," is  certainly  not  apparent  enough  to  justify  the 
price  at  which  it  is  purchased — which  is  no  less  than 
the  denial  that  Jesus  is,  in  any  proper  sense,  the  Sa- 
viour of  those  that  die  in  infancy.  For,  this  account 
of  the  "  salvation"  of  infants,  no  less  than  that  which 
it  would  supplant,  is  fundamentally  destructive  to  the 
very  principle  of  Arminianism.  For,  whether  the 
grace  of  Christ  is  called  in  for  the  pardon  of  the  sin  of 
those  who  die  in  infancy  or  merely  for  the  removal  of 
their  uncondemnable  depravity,  in  either  case  their 
destiny  is  determined  irrespective  of  their  choice,  by  an 

the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  unto  justification  of  life.'  so  that  the 
conditions  and  relations  of  the  race  in  infancy  differ  from  those  of 
newly  created  beings  solely  in  that,  by  the  natural  law  of  propaga- 
tion, a  corrupted  nature  is  inherited.  As  no  unclean  thing  or  unholy 
person  can  be  admitted  to  the  presence  of  God  ...  it  follows  that  if 
infants  are  taken  to  heaven,  some  power,  justifying,  sanctifying  their 
souls,  must  be  vouchsafed  unto  them  ;  the  saving  influence  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  must  be,  for  Christ's  sake,  unconditionally  bestowed.  Not 
only  their  preparation  for,  but  also  their  title  to,  and  enjoyment  of, 
the  blessedness  of  heaven  comes,  as  came  their  existence,  through  the 
shed  blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  .  .  .  Our  Lord's  assurance  of 
infant  salvation  is  sufficient ;  that,  if  saved,  they  are  saved  by  His 
blood,  admits  of  no  doubt ;  hence  we  catalogue  among  the  uncondi- 
tional benefits  of  atonement  the  secured  salvation  of  those  dying  in 
infancy." 

1  Systematic  Theology,  i.,  518,  532  ;  ii.,  247,  408,  505  sq.  Dr.  Miley 
is  very  decided  in  his  Pelagianizing  construction  and  controverts  at 
length  the  earlier  Wesleyan  view.  We  are  indebted  to  him  for  a 
number  of  references. 

*  The  Conflict  of  Centuries  (Nashville,  Tenn.,  Southern  Meth.  Pub. 
House.  1884,)  pp.  115  sq.,  166,  208.  "  The  fundamental  truth  is  here 
affirmed  '  that  there  is  no  corruption  in  children  which  is  truly  and 
properly  sin,'  "  etc. 

*  Future  Retribution  (New  York,  1891)  :  "  This  is  not  the  place  to 
discuss  the  question  of  the  relation  of  children  to  the  atonement,  and 
we  need  only  say  that,  not  being  sinners  in  any  true  definition  of  sin, 
their  relation  to  Christ  must  be  wholly  peculiar,  as  is  their  relation  to 
probation  and  the  new  birth"  (p.  159  note). 


230  THE  DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

unconditional  decree  of  God,  suspended  for  its  execu- 
tion on  no  act  of  their  own  ;  and  their  salvation  is 
wrought  by  an  unconditional  application  of  the  grace 
of  Christ  to  their  souls,  through  the  immediate  and  irre- 
sistible operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  prior  to  and  apart 
from  any  action  of  their  own  proper  wills.  We  can 
scarcely  speak  of  their  death  in  infancy  as  their  own 
voluntary  act,  and  we  are  therefore  forbidden  to  say 
that  their  salvation  is  conditioned  on  their  death  in  in- 
fancy— that  is  no  proper  condition  which  depends  on 
God's  providence  and  not  their  act.  And  if  death  in 
infancy  does  depend  on  God's  providence,  it  is  as- 
suredly God  in  His  providence  who  selects  this  vast 
multitude  to  be  made  participants  of  His  unconditional 
salvation.  It  would  be  hard  to  contend  that  He  did 
not  foreknow  those  who  would  die  in  infancy,  when  He 
gave  Christ  to  die  for  the  sin  of  the  world  ;  and  it 
would  be  inevitable  that  He  should  have  had  them  in 
mind  as  certainly  and  unconditionally  recipients  of  the 
benefits  of  His  atonement,  whatever  other  benefits  it 
might  bring  conditionally  to  others.  And  this  is  but  to 
say  that  they  were  unconditionally  predestinated  to 
salvation  from  the  foundation  of  the  world.  If  only  a 
single  infant  dying  in  irresponsible  infancy  be  saved,  the 
whole  Arminian  principle  is  traversed.  If  all  infants 
dying  such  are  saved,  not  only  the  majority  of  the  saved, 
but  doubtless  the  majority  of  the  human  race  hitherto, 
have  entered  into  life  by  a  non- Arminian  pathway. 

The  truth,  indeed,  seems  to  be  that  there  is  but  one 
logical  outlet  for  any  system  of  doctrine  which  sus- 
pends the  determination  of  who  are  to  be  saved  upon 
any  action  of  man's  own  will,  whether  in  the  use  of 
gracious  or  natural  ability.  That  lies  in  the  extension 
of  "  the  day  of  grace"  for  such  as  die  before  the  age  of 
responsible  action,  into  the  other  world.  Otherwise, 
there  will  inevitably  be  brought  in  covertly,  in  the  sal- 
vation of  infants,  that  very  sovereignty  of  God,  "  irre- 
sistible" grace  and  passive  receptivity,  to  deny  which 
is  the  whole  raison  d'etre  of  these  schemes.  There  are 
indications  that  this  is  being  felt  increasingly  and  in 
ever  wider  circles  among  those  who  are  most  con- 


"ETHICAL"    TENDENCIES.  231 

cerned  ;  we  have  noted  it  recently  among  the  Cum- 
berland Presbyterians,1  who,  perhaps  alone  of  Chris- 
tian denominations,  have  embodied  in  their  confession 
their  conviction  that  all  infants,  dying  such,  are  saved.8 
The  theory  of  a  probation  in  the  other  world  for  such 
as  have  had  in  this  no  such  probation  as  to  secure  from 
them  a  decisive  choice,  has  come  to  us  from  Germany, 
and  bears  accordingly  a  later  Lutheran  coloring.  Its 
roots  are,  however,  planted  in  the  earliest  Lutheran 
thinking,'  and  are  equally  visible  in  the  writings  of  the 
early  Remonstrants  ;  its  seeds  are  present,  in  fact, 
wherever  man's  salvation  is  causally  suspended  on  any 
act  of  his  own,  and  they  are  already  germinated  wher- 
ever the  Scriptural  declaration  that  none  can  be  saved 
except  through  Christ  is  transmuted  into  its  pseudo- 
disjunctive  that  none  can  be  lost  except  through  re- 
jection of  Christ— as  if  from  the  proposition  that  none 
can  live  without  food  it  followed  that  none  can  die  who 
do  not  reject  food.  But  the  outcome  offered  by  this 
theory  certainly  affords  no  good  reason  for  affirming 
that  all  infants,  dying  such,  are  saved.  It  is  not  un- 
common, indeed,  for  its  advocates  to  suppose  the  pres- 
ent life  to  be  a  more  favorable  opportunity  for  moral 

1  Cumberland  Presbyterian  Review,  July,  1890,  p.  369  ;  cf.  Janu- 
ary, 1890,  p   113. 

*  "  All  infants  dying  in  infancy  are  regenerated  and  saved  by  Christ 
through  the  Spirit,  who  worketh  when,  and  where,  and  how  He 
pleaseth  ;  so  also  are  others  who  have  never  had  the  exercise  of  rea- 
son, and  who  are  incapable  of  being  outwardly  called  by  the  minis- 
try of  the  Word." — The  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Cumberland 
Presbyterian  Church,  revised  and  adopted  by  the  General  Assembly 
at  Princeton,  Ky.,  May,  1829  (Nashville,  Tenn.,  Board  of  Publication 
C.  P.  Church,  1880,  ch.  x.,  §  3).  In  the  revision  of  1883,  this  runs  : 
"  All  infants  dying  in  infancy,  and  all  persons  who  have  never  had 
the  faculty  of  reason,  are  regenerated  and  saved." — Confession  of 
Faith  and  Government  of  the  Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church. 
(Nashville,  etc.,  1893,  §  54,  p.  34.) 

8  Cf.  e.g.,  Andrew  (Actis  Col  log.  Montisbelligart,  p.  447,  448), 
who  argues  that  those  who  are  adjudicated  to  eternal  punishment 
are  not  condemned  for  the  reason  that  they  have  sinned,  but  because 
they  have  refused  to  embrace  Christ  in  true  faith.  Beza  very  appro- 
priately replied  :  "This  that  you  say,  '  these  are  not  therefore  damned 
because  they  have  sinned,'  is  something  wholly  new  to  me  and  hitherto 
unheard  of,  since  sin  is  the  sole  cause  of  eternal  damnation,  why  the 
wicked  are  left  in  their  wickedness  and  condemned." 


232  THE  DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

renewal  in  Christ  than  the  next.1  Some,  no  doubt, 
think  otherwise.  But  in  either  event  what  can  assure 
us  that  all  whose  opportunity  comes  to  them  only  on 
the  other  side  of  the  grave  will  be  so  renewed  ?  Surely 
we  must  bear  constantly  in  mind  that,  however  the  cir- 
cumstances in  that  world  may  differ  from  those  of  life 
here,  there  will  nevertheless  always  "  remain  the  mys- 
tery of  that  freedom  which  makes  it  possible  to  reject 
Christ," a  and  therefore  a  probability  less  or  greater,  ac- 
cording to  our  estimate  of  the  relative  favorableness  of 
the  opportunity  for  moral  renewal  in  Christ,  offered 
then  and  now,  that  fewer  or  more  of  those  that  die  in 
infancy  will  use  their  freedom  in  rejecting  Christ,  and 
so  pass  to  doom. 

Efforts  enough,  no  doubt,  have  been  made  to  show 
that,  even  on  the  so-called  "  ethical"  postulates,  it  is 
reasonable  to  believe  that  all  infants,  dying  such,  will 
attain  blessedness,  and  that,  without  the  assumption 
of  any  proper  probation  beyond  the  grave.  We  are 
ready  to  accept  the  subtle  argument  in  Dr.  Kedney's 
valuable  work,  Christian  Doctrine  Harmonized,*  as  the 
best  that  can  be  said  in  the  premises.  Dr.  Kedney 
denies  the  theory  of  "future  probation,"  but  shares 
the  general  "  ethical"  view  on  which  it  is  founded,  and 
projects  the  salvation  of  infants  dying  in  infancy  into 
the  next  world  on  the  express  ground  that  they  are  in- 
capable of  choice  here.  He  assures  us  that  they  will 
surely  welcome  the  knowledge  of  God's  love  in  Christ 
there.  But  we  miss  the  grounds  of  assurance,  on  the 
fundamental  postulates  of  the  scheme.  He  reasons 
that  we  may  fairly  believe  ' '  that  even  in  such  cases  the 
moral  trend  is  in  this  life  determined,  and  through 
mystical  influence,  as  in  all  cases  whatever,  such  deter- 
mination sure  to  issue  in  self-determination,  foreseen 
by  God  and  the  environment  adapted  accordingly." 
"  This  simply  locates  the  will,"  he  adds,  "  back  of  the 
point  of  clear  self-consciousness,  and  uses  the  word  to 

'  Cf.  Progressive  Orthodoxy,  p.  76  :  "  There  is  much  reason  also, 
in  the  nature  of  the  case,  to  believe  that  the  present  life  is  the  most 
favorable  opportunity  for  moral  renewal  in  Christ." 

i  Progressive  Orthodoxy,  p.  93.  ■  Vol.  ii.,  pp.  91  so. 


"ETHICAL"    TENDENCIES.  233 

represent  the  rudimentary  consciousness,  which  last 
has  spiritual  elements."  "  Hence  the  inference,"  he 
concludes,  "  that  infants  dying  are  on  the  way  to  per- 
fection, since  the  knowledge  of  God's  love  in  Christ  is 
sure  to  reach  them  under  the  coming  environment,  and 
that,  not  to  be  possibly  rejected,  but  sure  to  be  wel- 
comed, and  to  carry  them  to  the  blessed  end.  This 
supply  of  the  highest  possible  motive-spring,  in  every 
case  needful  for  perfection,  is  not  probation,  but  eleva- 
tion." We  certainly  rejoice  in  this  conclusion.  But 
as  certainly  we  do  not  find  it  possible  to  view  it  as  a 
logical  corollary  from  Dr.  Kedney's  general  principle 
that  every  man's  eternal  state  is  determined  by  a  true 
probation,  personally  undergone  by  him  under  influ- 
ences and  providential  provisions  for  making  a  holy 
choice  easy.  Rather  it  appears  to  us  to  rest  on  as- 
sumptions which  stand  in  flagrant  contradiction  with 
this  principle;  and  it  is  hard  for  us  to  see  why,  if  the  great 
majority  of  those  who  are  saved  are  saved  by  a  mysti- 
cal influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit's,  acting  beneath  con- 
sciousness, such  as  makes  their  choice  of  Christ  certain, 
we  need  be  so  strenuous  in  denying  with  reference  to 
the  minority  the  morality  of  so  blessed  and  sure  a  sal- 
vation.1 

Dr.  Kedney's  inconsistency  *  appears  to  us  happy  in- 

1  It  is  a  view  not  essentially  differing  from  Dr.  Kedney's  that  the 
Rev.  D.  Fisk  Harris,  himself  a  Congregational  minister  (Calvinism 
Contrary  to  God's  Word  and  Man's  Moral  Nature,  p.  107),  tells 
us  "  seems  to  be  the  prevailing  view  of  Congregationalists."  This 
he  states  thus  :  "  All  infants  become  moral  agents  after  death.  Exer- 
cising a  holy  choice,  they  '  are  saved  on  the  ground  of  the  atonement 
and  by  regeneration.'"  Suppose  they  do  not  exercise  a  "holy 
choice"?  What  is  to  assure  us  that  they  will  all  "exercise  a  holy 
choice"  ?  If  the  choice  of  these  infants  while  it  remains  free  can  be 
made  certain  there,  why  not  the  same  for  adults  here  ?  And  if  their 
choice  is  made  certain,  by  what  is  it  that  their  destiny  is  determined 
— by  their  choice,  or  by  the  Divine  act  which  makes  it  certain  ?  As- 
suredly, no  thoroughfare  is  open  along  this  path  for  a  consistent  doc- 
trine of  the  salvation  of  all  that  die  in  infancy,  unless  the  whole  prin- 
ciple of  the  theory  is  given  up  and  the  Reformed  doctrine  of  the  sov- 
ereign and  irresistible  grace  of  God  sub-introduced. 

2  This  inconsistency  naturally  appears  in  all  writers  of  similar  ten- 
dencies, and  the  popular  religious  literature  of  the  day  is  accordingly 
full  of  it.  An  example  may  be  found  in  Bishop  Hugh  Miller  Thomp- 
son's Baldwin  Lectures  on   The  World  and  the  Man  (New  York, 


234  THE  DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

deed  when  we  consider  what  the  more  consistent  solu- 
tion of  the  problem  would  be,  as  it  is  offered,  say,  by 

1890).  His  conception  of  Christianity  is  the  so-called  "  ethical"  one 
(pp.  59,  150),  and  his  central  idea  is  that  the  world  is  "  the  wilder- 
ness" or  trial-ground  necessary  for  fitting  men  for  heaven.  In  the 
middle  of  a  chapter  the  very  object  of  which  is  to  show  that  the  sons 
of  God  must  needs  be  trained  by  tests  and  trials,  attempts  and  tempta- 
tions, and  that  the  law  that  "  resistance  is  the  measure  of  advance" 
is  universal,  he  needs  to  stop  suddenly  and  say  :  "  And  it  does  not 
change  the  law  that  myriads  of  the  children  of  our  race  are  spared 
this  trial.  The  majority  of  those  born  into  the  wilderness  are  taken 
out  of  it  before  temptation  begins."  "  There  is  no  sense  in  this,"  he 
adds  justly,  "  if  we  look  at  our  '  science  '  only.  The  death  of  infants 
is  absolutely  irrational  in  the  face  of  the  law  of  survival,  if  we  confine 
that  law  only  to  time  and  the  world.  I  dare  say  there  is  nothing 
more  preposterously  senseless  than  the  death,  at  a  year  old,  of  a  child 
who  in  head  and  hand,  in  health  and  intellect,  was  the  perfect  flower 
of  his  race  !  But  the  great  Father  has  other  schools  besides  this.  He 
is  not  confined  to  one  curriculum  for  the  training  of  His  sons,  and 
those  He  takes  away  need  other  discipline  than  this  wilderness 
affords.  He  trains  some  here.  He  need  not  train  all"  (p.  96).  It 
certainly  is  interesting  to  learn  that  a  ' '  universal' '  law  is  not  affected  by 
its  inapplicability  to  "the  majority"  of  those  over  whom  it  was  to 
rule.  It  is  equally  worthy  of  note  that  Dr.  Thompson's  "ethical" 
theory  of  the  necessity  of  "  probation"  forces  him  to  assume  that  chil- 
dren departing  this  life  must  enter,  not  a  place  of  bliss,  but  a  new 
trial  place  in  the  same  sense  in  which  this  life  is  a  trial-place,  and 
equally  including  likewise  the  risk  and  certainty  of  many  failures. 
There  is,  in  other  words,  no  pathway  open  along  this  road  for  belief 
in  the  salvation  of  all  who  die  in  infancy,  nor  even  for  the  immediate 
salvation  of  any  who  die  in  infancy.  All  who  are  saved  must 
be  saved  through  trial,  here  or  hereafter.  Whether  Dr.  Thompson 
would  assent  to  this  or  not,  we  do  not  know  ;  his  theory  involves  it. 
Compare  the  following  words  of  Dr.  E.  H.  Plumptre  {The  Wider 
Hope,  edited  by  James  Hogg,  London,  1890,  p.  132) :  "  I  dwelt  .  .  . 
on  the  fact  that  for  a  large  number  of  human  souls,  whom  the  great 
mass  of  Christians  recognize  as  heirs  of  immortality,  there  has  been 
absolutely  no  possibility  of  any  action  that  could  test  or  develop  char- 
acter. '  As  yet  I  am  compelled  to  believe  that  where  there  has  been 
no  adequate  probation  or  none  at  all,  there  must  be  some  extension 
of  the  possibility  of  development  or  change  beyond  the  limits  of  this 
present  life.  Take  the  case  of  unbaptized  children.  Shall  we  close 
the  gates  of  Paradise  against  them  and  satisfy  ourselves  with  the 
levissima  damnatio  which  gained  for  Augustine  the  repute  of  the 
durus  pater  infantum  ?  And  if  we  are  forced  in  such  a  case  to 
admit  the  law  or  progress,  is  it  not  legitimate  to  infer  that  it  extends 
beyond  them  to  those  whose  state  is  more  or  less  analogous  ? '  "  Dr. 
Plumptre  does  not  once  think  of  the  possibility  of  infants  passing  at 
once  to  bliss, — "  unbaptized  children,"  he  says  out  of  his  Anglican 
consciousness;  the  best  he  can  hope  for  is  that  they  "  may  have  a 
chance"  under  probation  :  and  that  is  certainly  the  best  that  can  be 
hoped  under  his  "ethical"  view. 


"ET/f/CAL"    TENDENCIES.  235 

Dr.  Emory  Miller.'  Because  his  theory  forces  him  to 
consider  that  the  racial  and  social  life  existent  in  this 
world  affords  the  lowest  and  easiest  conditions  which 
"  all-conditioning  love"  can  prepare  for  the  rise,  prog- 
ress and  perfection  of  finite  personalities,  Dr.  Miller 
can  find  nothing  better  to  say  of  "  infants  of  days," 
dying  such,  than  that,  along  with  idiots,  as  they  have 
' '  never  exercised  self-determination,  they  have  not  at- 
tained to  individual  self-consciousness,"  and  are  per- 
sons "  only  in  the  sense  of  a  bundle  of  personal  condi- 
tions ;"  and  hence  "  physical  death,  which  is  merely 
racial  retribution,  the  dissolution  of  race  conditions, 
must,  so  far  as  we  can  determine  without  a  revelation 
on  the  subject,  end  their  being."  Even  for  children 
of  a  somewhat  larger  growth,  "  who  have  passed  from 
human  conditions  without  human  temptation  or  pro- 
bation into  the  conditions  and  associations  of  the 
blessed,"  though  he  is  forced  to  allow  that  their  new 
conditions  are  those  of  "  overwhelming  motives  to 
love  and  entire  absence  of  temptation,"  he  yet,  because 
he  is  required  to  contend  that  any  conceivable  condi- 
tions are  less  easy  for  attaining  perfection  than  those 
provided  in  this  world,  can  only  promise  relatively 
low  attainments  and  doubtful  advance  toward  perfec- 
tion. These  new  conditions,  after  all,  are  not  such  as 
will  afford  opportunity  of  "  self-determined  conquest 
of  natural  susceptibilities  to  selfishness,"  or  of  the  at- 
tainment "  of  the  consciousness  of  moral  security  as 
against  supposable  temptation  to  sin."  By  them  alone, 
therefore,  perfect  personality  or  the  hignest  order  of 
moral  character  cannot  be  reached  ;  though  it  must  be 
admitted  that  through  association  with  the  "  faithful" 
who  have  determined  their  own  security  (and  whom 
Dr.  Miller  strangely  speaks  of  as  constituting  the 
"  main  body"  of  the  perfect  universe,  as  if  the  number 
of  these  conquering  faithful"  could  possibly  exceed 
the  combined  numbers  of  "  angels,  infants,  and  innocent 
heathen")  they  too  may  eventually  acquire  a  like  tran- 

1  Tkt  Evolution  of  Love.  By  Emory  Miller,  D.D.,  LL.D.  (Chi- 
cago, 1892),  p.  330  ;  cf.  pp.  254  and  336.  which  speak  of  children  and 
not  merely  infants. 


236  THE  DOCTRINE   OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

scendent  security.  From  such  speculations  one  turns 
with  the  sense  of  a  great  relief  to  the  simplicity  of  the 
Word,  which  does  not  suspend  salvation  upon  man's 
action,  but  solely  upon  the  loving  act  of  God,  for  whom 
nothing  is  "  too  hard  ;"  and  with  a  deepened  convic- 
tion that  it  is  better  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  God  than 
in  those  of  men,  however  well-intentioned. 


The  drifts  of  doctrine  which  have  come  before  us  in 
this  rapid  sketch  may  be  reduced  to  three  generic 
views.  I.  There  is  what  may  be  called  the  ecclesiasti- 
cal doctrine.  According  to  this  the  Church,  in  the  sense 
of  an  outwardly  organized  body,  is  set  as  the  sole  foun- 
tain of  salvation  in  the  midst  of  a  lost  world  ;  the  Spirit 
of  God  and  eternal  life  are  its  peculiar  endowments, 
of  which  none  can  partake  save  through  communion 
with  it.  Accordingly  to  all  those  departing  this  life  in 
infancy,  baptism,  the  gateway  to  tjie  Church,  is  the 
condition  of  salvation.  2.  There  is  what  may  be  called 
the  gracious  doctrine.  According  to  this  the  visible 
Church  is  not  set  in  the  world  to  determine  by  the  gift 
of  its  ordinances  who  are  to  be  saved,  but,  as  the  har- 
bor of  refuge  for  the  saints,  to  gather  into  its  bosom 
those  whom  God  Himself  in  His  infinite  love  has  select- 
ed in  Christ  Jesus  belore  the  foundation  of  the  world 
in  whom  to  show  the  wonders  of  His  grace.  Men  ac- 
cordingly are  not  saved  because  they  are  baptized,  but 
they  are  baptized  because  they  are  saved  ;  and  the  fail- 
ure' of  the  ordinance  does  not  argue  the  failure  of  the 
grace.  Accordingly  to  all  those  departing  this  life  in 
infancy,  inclusion  in  God's  saving  purpose  alone  is  the 
condition  of  salvation  :  we  may  be  able  to  infer  this 
purpose  from  manifest  signs,  or  we  may  not  be  able  to 
infer  it,  but  in  any  case  it  cannot  fail.  3.  There  is 
what  may  be  called  the  humanitarian  doctrine.  Ac- 
cording to  this  the  determining  cause  of  man's  salva- 
tion is  his  own  free  choice,  under  whatever  variety  of 
theories  as  to  the  source  of  his  power  to  exercise  this 
choice,  or  the  manner  in  which  it  is  exercised.     Ac- 


"ETHICAL"    TENDENCIES.  237 

cordingly  whether  one  is  saved  or  not  is  dependent  not 
on  inclusion  by  baptism  in  the  Church,  the  God-en- 
dowed institution  of  salvation,  nor  on  inclusion  by  grace 
in  God's  hidden  purpose  of  mercy,  but  on  the  decisive 
activity  of  the  individual  soul  itself. 

The  first  of  these  doctrines  is  characteristic  of  the 
early,  the  mediaeval,  and  the  Roman  churches,  and  is 
not  without  echoes  in  those  sections  of  Protestantism 
which  love  to  think  of  themselves  as  "  more  historical" 
or  less  radically  reformed  than  the  rest.  The  second 
is  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  churches.  These  two 
are  not  opposed  to  one  another  in  their  most  funda- 
mental conception,  but  are  related  rather  as  an  earlier 
misapprehension  and  a  later  correction  of  the  same 
basal  doctrine.  The  phrase  extra  ecclesiam  nulla  salus  is 
the  common  property  of  both  ;  they  differ  only  in  their 
understanding  of  what  is  meant  by  the  "  ecclesia"  out- 
side of  which  is  no  salvation,  whether  the  visible  or 
the  invisible  church,  whether  the  externally  organized 
institution  or  the  true  "  body  of  Christ"  bound  to  Him 
by  the  indwelling  Spirit.  The  third  doctrine,  on  the 
other  hand,  has  cropped  out  ever  and  again  in  every 
age  of  the  Church,  has  dominated  the  thought  of  whole 
sections  of  it  and  of  whole  ages,  but  has  never,  in  its 
purity,  found  expression  in  any  great  historic  confes- 
sion or  exclusively  characterized  any  age.  It  is,  in 
fact,  not  a  development  of  Christian  doctrine  at  all,  but 
an  intrusion  into  Christian  thought  from  without.  In 
its  purity  it  has  always  and  in  all  communions  been 
recognized  as  deadly  heresy  ;  and  only  as  it  has  been 
more  or  less  modified  and  concealed  among  distinctive- 
ly Christian  adjuncts  has  it  ever  made  a  position  for 
itself  in  the  Church.  Its  fundamental  conception  is 
the  antipodes  of  that  of  the  other  doctrines,  inasmuch 
as  it  looks  to  man  and  not  to  God  as  the  decisive  actor 
in  the  saving  of  the  soul. 

The  first  sure  step  in  the  development  of  the  doctrine 
of  infant  salvation  was  taken  when  the  Church  drew 
from  the  Scriptures  that  foundation  which  from  the  be- 
ginning has  stood  firm,  Infants  too  are  lost  members  of  a 
lest  race,  and  only  those  savingly  united  to  Christ  are  saved. 


238  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  INFANT  SALVATION. 

It  was  only  in  its  definition  of  what  infants  are  thus 
savingly  united  to  Christ  that  the  early  Church  missed 
the  path.  All  that  are  brought  to  Him  in  baptism,  was 
its  answer.  And  long  ages  needed  to  pass  before  a 
second  step  in  the  development  of  the  doctrine  was 
taken  in  a  corrected  definition.  The  way  for  a  truer  ap- 
prehension was  prepared  indeed  by  Augustine's  doc- 
trine of  grace,  by  which  salvation  was  made  dependent 
on  the  dealings  of  God  with  the  individual  heart,  and 
thus  in  principle  all  ecclesiastical  bonds  were  broken. 
But  his  own  eyes  were  holden  that  he  should  not  see 
it.  It  was  thus  reserved  to  Zwingli  to  proclaim  the 
true  answer  clearly,  All  the  elect  children  of  God,  who 
are  regenerated  by  the  Spirit,  who  works  when,  and  where, 
and  how  He  pleases.  The  sole  question  that  remains  is, 
Who  of  those  that  die  in  infancy  are  the  elect  children 
of  God  ?  Tentative  answers  have  been  given.  The 
children  of  God's  people,  some  have  said.  Others  have 
said,  The  children  of  God's  people,  with  such  others  as 
His  love  has  set  upon  to  call.  All  those  that  die  in 
infancy,  others  still  have  said.  And  it  is  to  this  reply 
that  Reformed  thinking  and  not  Reformed  thinking 
only,  but  in  one  way  or  another,  logically  or  illogi- 
cally,  the  thinking  of  the  Christian  world  has  been 
converging.  Is  it  the  Scriptural  answer  ?  If  it  be 
really  conformable  to  the  Word  of  God  it  will  stand  ; 
and  the  third  step  in  the  development  of  the  doctrine 
of  infant  salvation  is  already  taken. 

But  if  this  answer  stand,  it  must  be  clearly  under- 
stood that  it  can  stand  on  no  other  theological  basis  than 
lhat  of  the  Reformed  theology.  If  all  infants  dying  in 
infancy  are  saved,  it  is  certain  that  they  are  not  saved 
by  or  through  the  ordinances  of  the  visible  Church  ; 
for  they  have  not  received  them.  It  is  equally  cer- 
tain that  they  are  not  saved  through  their  own  improve- 
ment of  a  grace  common  to  all  men  ;  for,  just  because 
they  die  in  infanc}',  they  are  incapable  of  personal 
activity.  It  is  equally  certain  that  they  are  not  saved 
through  the  granting  to  them  of  a  bare  opportunity  of 
salvation  in  the  next  world  ;  for  a  bare  opportunity 
indubitably  falls  short  of  salvation.     If  all  that  die  in 


"ETHICAL"    TENDENCIES.  239 

infancy  are  saved,  it  can  only  be  through  the  almighty 
operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  works  when,  and 
where,  and  how  He  pleases,  through  whose  ineffable 
grace  the  Father  gathers  these  little  ones  to  the  home 
He  has  prepared  for  them.  If,  then,  the  salvation  of 
all  that  die  in  infancy  be  held  to  be  a  certain  or  prob- 
able fact,  this  fact  will  powerfully  react  on  the  whole 
complex  of  our  theological  conceptions,  and  no  system 
of  theological  thought  can  live  in  which  it  cannot  find  a 
natural  and  logical  place.  It  can  find  such  a  place  in 
the  Reformed  theology.  It  can  find  such  a  place  in  no 
other  system  of  theological  thought. 


fivfuu 


Date  Due 





fACUl 


M 


~— m 


